Writing

Linebaugh, Zach

ENGL 1302.83040

May 3, 2017

Final Draft

Religious Freedom and Prisoner Rights: The Case of Holt v. Hobbs

There has always been some debate on how many natural American freedoms a person

loses when they go to prison. Some scholars say that they are still Americans and should be

treated as any other citizen, while others contend that it is up to the prison for many issues based

on their own standards. I tend to agree with the latter. As with almost all Supreme Court cases,

Holt v. Hobbs has its own set of controversies. In this case, prisoner Gregory Houston Holt (also

known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad) is arguing that he should be able to grow his beard to half

an inch in length, claiming it is part of his Muslim faith. Facial hair (other than a small, trimmed

mustache) is currently prohibited by the Arkansas prison where he is serving a life sentence for

stabbing his girlfriend (although he has been involved in several prior incidents). The only

exception to the facial hair rule in place is if a prisoner has dermatologic problems as diagnosed

by a doctor. The prison has cited several reasons for their unwillingness to accept Mr. Holt’s

facial hair proposal, which include safety and identification concerns. Mr. Holt formulated a

hand-written petition to the courts to appeal that he should be able to exercise the freedom to

grow his beard. Although religious freedom is an essential part of American life, the right to

grow facial hair to practice a faith is sacrificed while in prison. Prisons are justified in banning

certain individual rights when they directly impact prison safety, and that option should not be

questioned.

Linebaugh 2

Holt originally petitioned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in

2013 saying that his religious rights were being violated under the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act or RLUIPA. This case was looked at and the prisoner failed to gain

the sympathy of the three judge panel after originally being granted the motion, according to

Katie Hoesly of Willamette University College of Law. This ultimately led to an appeal by Holt

to the highest court in the land. After the appeal, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to

decide on the matter. Holt was able to grow his beard to his desired half-inch while the case goes

on as ruled by the Supreme Court. This case would officially determine whether or not the

Department of Corrections could regulate the length of their prisoners’ beards without violating

“RLUIPA or the First Amendment” (Hoesly).

The opponents of the prison’s policy believe that Holt should be protected under the

RLUIPA that was passed in 2000. This religious act changed the law for inmates and prison

chaplains, according to Ron Taylor in his magazine article “Inmates’ Religious Rights: A

Chaplain’s Perspective on RLUIPA.” In the era before RLUIPA, inmates had to make a

compelling argument and “prove they were members of an approved religion” (Taylor 70).

RLUIPA says that the state now has to prove that the prisoners are not affiliated with the religion

that they claim to be part of. This new law has granted numerous prisoners the right to do various

things regarding religion since its inception. It is not a “cakewalk” to change rules for an

institution even with the new law. According to Taylor, there are 10 steps put in place to respond

to a request (72). These include the inmate forming a written request, determining whether the

inmate is sincere, and finally deciding whether the request “jeopardizes institutional health,

safety and/or security” (Taylor 73). Supporters of Holt claim that all of these criteria are met and

question the motives of the prison for not allowing him to grow a beard.

Linebaugh 3

I would argue that while he may seem sincere and did formally write a request, it does

not pass the safety test. Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote an article about the case

called “Supreme Court Agrees to Weigh an Inmate’s Right to Grow a Beard for Religious

Reasons.” In this article, he quotes some experienced prison officials that understand the danger

in people growing beards. During the Supreme Court debate, they testified that “homemade darts

and other weapons” and “cellphone SIM cards could be concealed in even half-inch beards”

(Liptak). This is not the only known problem with facial hair behind bars. There is also the issue

of identification. If an inmate is allowed to have a beard behind bars, then it becomes easier to

disguise their look by simply shaving in the case that they try to escape, or otherwise fool prison

officials. The Arkansas prison promotes good “health and hygiene” and believes that beards

should remain banned (Liptak). Officials from the prison also contend with opponents that they

do not want to be responsible for maintaining the proper length of inmates’ beards. An example

of a potential problem would be a prisoner getting upset or disagreeing with guards on how long

the beard is, which could lead to violence.

Holt’s lawyer, Professor Douglas Laycock, from the University of Virginia, has been

involved in five previous Supreme Court cases, according to Sarah Pritchett in her article “U.Va.

Law Prof. Douglas Laycock to Argue Religious Liberty Case Before Supreme Court,” published

in the Cavalier Daily newspaper. He is nationally recognized when it comes to religious liberty,

and he cites that Congress believes that prisoners should be allowed to practice religion in order

to “aid” themselves to “rehabilitation” (Pritchett). An argument that Laycock makes is that

beards do not serve the interests of safety of the inmates because they would be able to hide

contraband in other places, such as their shoe (Pritchett). He also addresses that 43 states allow at

least the half-inch beard that Holt wants. According to the University of Virginia School of Law

Linebaugh 4

website, Laycock also claimed that he believed that this decision by the Supreme Court would

ease the burden on lower courts. He feels that it will be easier for prisoners to get religious

benefits as this decision will “provide better guidance to prison policymakers” (“Laylock to

Argue”). Laycock went as far as stating that the “Eighth Circuit is so deferential to the prison

officials that protecting religious liberty is effectively nullified” (“Laylock to Argue”). Holt’s

lawyer clearly believes that prisons are using tactics purposefully to go against their inmates’

religious beliefs. In his interview with the University of Virginia, the crafty lawyer scoffs at the

thought of someone using the term “prison security” to decline a religious practice.

In response to his lawyer’s argument, I feel that some power should remain with the

correctional facility. It seems like they do not have a say in how to run their own facility. The

reason that debates like this come up is because it is a well-documented fact that people lose

certain rights, such as the right to vote or own a weapon, when they go to prison. While his

assertion that inmates could hide contraband in other places is a valid point, I contend that prison

officials should not be forced to allow the prisoners to have an extra place to hide smaller items

such as shanks. In my opinion, this man made the mistake and must live with the consequences

on the prison’s terms. Holt is currently serving a life sentence and can be seen as a person with

nothing to lose. In the article “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act,” author

Stephen J. Ingley (Executive Director of the American Jail Association) looks at RLUIPA and a

case in Ohio called “Cutter v. Wilkinson” where gang members “sought religious

accommodations that would undermine Ohio’s anti-gang activities” (7). Ingley reveals that the

court reviewed the RLUIPA law and eventually determined that it was, in fact, constitutional on

its face, but could be “problematic” depending on the circumstance (7). If Holt ends up winning

the case then it would set the precedent that people could practice their faith by wearing a beard.

Linebaugh 5

This seems like a tough sell. The question that will always loom is: how do we know that they

are not lying? Many people who have fought to change RLUIPA argue that “prison gangs use

religious activity to cloak their illicit and often violent conduct” (Ingley 7). As prison officials

have pointed out, it is easy to hide small shanks in a beard or cheek which renders it a tedious

task for guards to have to make sure that the safety of all inmates is maximized. Family members

or even lawyers can sneak in items during visiting hours for the prisoner to hide. It seems that

with a Supreme Court backing, many non-believers will claim faith and take advantage of the

system. Personally, I am fine with the man wanting to practice his faith. However, because of the

environment that he put himself in, the lack of safety for prisoners and guards alike seems too

great to overcome. Another question is: where does this stop? Could we have another appeal in a

few years that says that beards should be as long as inmates want in order to practice faith?

Human history has shown us that people always want more. It is simple economics and

psychology. As Mr. Laycock himself has said, it will become easier for the lower courts to

determine if the inmate should be allowed to grow a beard. If Mr. Holt wins then we will very

likely begin to see many more court cases where prisoners try to claim a faith to be able to

follow his lead. To summarize my point, I believe in the freedom of religion as it is a basic right

of Americans. However, I think that the prisons should have more power to decide their own

policy. They should be able to make rules and a dress code, within reason, while of course

continuing to guarantee basic rights, like nutrition, without being scrutinized. Holt’s case all

comes back to personal decision making. Nobody was questioning his beard before he

committed the crimes because he was a free man. Now he should have to play by the prison’s

rules. Ingley pointed out in his article that because security for prisoners is a priority and is a

Linebaugh 6

“governmental interest,” the “courts are still required to give due deference to corrections

officials” when it comes to security (7).

While I will concede that a decent argument can be made in favor of Mr. Holt growing a

beard, I cannot bring myself to believe that the freedom of a prisoner is more sacred than the

freedom and security of the prison. There have been other precedents in the past which allow

prisoners to practice their religion in a less controversial way. According to the ACLU

(American Civil Liberties Union), inmates are allowed to observe religious days such as the

Sabbath for Christians or Friday services for Muslims (“Know Your Rights” 3). Prisoners are

also freely allowed to pray while in prison as well as own religious literature (“Know Your

Rights” 4). These rights gained by prisoners to practice the religion of their choosing would seem

to be adequate. These rights have been upheld, and are not in question of violating safety

regulations as they appeal to the more genuine believer. For instance, a person who is not of faith

would be less likely to attend services or read religious texts than a person who is genuine about

what he/she believes. As the ACLU article “Know Your Rights Freedom of Religion” also points

out, “prisoners have rarely been successful in challenging grooming and dress regulations” (4).

The reasons for this come back to safety and identification concerns. It is difficult to stress the

importance that we need to place in not only the justice for prisoners, but also for the justice of

the correctional facility and the dedicated people who run it. I wholeheartedly believe that the

prison officials in Arkansas know what they can handle and can see that it would not be

beneficial to them if prisoners could grow facial hair because of the possible danger and violence

that it could lead to.

Linebaugh 7

Overall, it seems that the Supreme Court case Holt v. Hobbs will come down to the

interpretation of what rights the Justices feel should be given to the prisoner, and what rights

should be controlled by the prison. There is Mr. Holt, who believes that his strong Muslim faith

should allow him to grow a beard, and there is the Arkansas prison that argues that safety

concerns, among other things, is a strong enough reason to keep him clean shaven. The Justices

will also be forced to deal with the precedent that they will set if they allow Mr. Holt to grow his

beard. It will become much tougher to determine who is being sincere in their beliefs and who

simply wants to take advantage of the system. If the government does not give back some control

to the prisons and give them deference to run their own facilities, then I predict that we will

continue to see the RLUIPA being taken advantage of. Religious freedom is an essential part of

being an American as it is guaranteed in the Constitution, but some of those rights can and

should be taken away when a person fails to obey the law. Holt v. Hobbs is a perfect example of

how safety should always come first.

Linebaugh 8

Works Cited

Hoesly, Katie. “Holt v. Hobbs.” Willamette Law Online (2014): n. pag. United States Supreme

Court Updates. 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/scotuscg/2014/03/holt- v.-

hobbs.html>.

Ingley, Stephen J. "Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Person's Act." American

Jails 19.3 (2005): 7. Academic Search Complete. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

"Know Your Rights Freedom of Religion." ACLU. Aclu.org. ACLU National Prison

Project, July 2005. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

<https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file78_25744.pdf>.

"Laycock to Argue Prisoner Religious Liberty Case Before U.S. Supreme Court." University of

Virginia School of Law. N.p., 5 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2014_spr/laycock_holt.htm>.

Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Agrees to Weigh an Inmate’s Right to Grow a Beard for

Religious Reasons." New York Times 4 Mar. 2014: A11. 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Apr.

2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/us/supreme-court-agrees-to- weigh-

arkansas-inmates-right-to-grow-a beard.html

Pritchett, Sarah. "U.Va. Law Prof. Douglas Laycock to Argue Religious Liberty Case before

Supreme Court." Cavalierdaily.com. N.p., 6 Mar. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2014/03/u-va-law-prof-douglas-laycock-to- argue-

for-religious-liberty-before-supreme-court>.

Linebaugh 9

Turner, Ron. "Inmates' Religious Rights: A Chaplain's Perspective On

RLUIPA." Corrections Today 76.1 (2014): 70-73. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12

Apr. 2014.