- Click here for the decision.
At least one 2305 student will be looking at the case of Holt v. Hobbs. Hobbs is a Muslim prisoner who claimed that his religious beliefs required him to grow a beard. Hobbs is the director of the Arkansas Department of Correction who sought to prevent this on the grounds that a beard could be used to conceal weapons and other contraband as well as try to disguise his identity.
The court disagreed with Hobbs.
There are a variety of points that can be made about this case, it will be the job of each student to develop a good one. I'll provide some hints about what directions are worth pursuing, but I want you all to take the first step. In my opinion the best resource you have is the page devoted to the case on ScotusBlog - click here for Holt v. Hobbs - though you might find a few other places to go.
One thing you may wish to begin with - and I'll do this for all the cases students propose to write about - are the specific questions presented to the court. In this case there were several:
I. Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no beard grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
II. Whether a ½ inch beard would satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
III. Whether the no beard grooming policy violates Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice Islam as he believes it is supposed to be practiced by the wearing of the beard.
IV. That the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has decided that the no beard grooming policy does not violate the RLUIPA, but this Court should decide the matter since it has not done so and should rule whether grooming policies of any Department of Correction that do not allow for a religious exception exemption are constitutional.
V. That the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s decision in this case conflicts with other circuit’s rulings on the matter.
VI. That the ADC grooming policy of no beards is not the least restrictive means of achieving the desired objective of staunching the flow of contraband and identifying prisoners in the event of an escape.
I'd suggest thinking about these questions. You might also want to get familiar with the law in question, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
You should also get familiar with the concept of strict scrutiny. It's the level of proof that the government has to clear in order to justify a restriction on a basic civil liberty such as the exercise of religion.
The current Supreme Court - the Roberts Court - has focused quite a bit on religious freedom. You might want to catch up a bit on that. Here are some reasonable sources.
- How Serious Is the Supreme Court About Religious Freedom?
- The Roberts Court and the Separation of Church and State.
- Landmark court cases.
More to come.
