Supreme Court Hear's Arguments in Holt v. Hobbs Religious Freedom Case

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments tuesday in Holt v. Hobbs, a highly publicized case which will decide on whether an Arkansas prison policy barring a Muslim inmate from growing a beard violates his freedom of religious expression. The case involves a 39 year-old prisoner named Gregory Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad.

Supreme Court justices appeared united as they picked apart prison rules in Arkansas that allow full Afros and mustaches, but no beards, in a case about a Muslim inmate’s claim that his religious beliefs require that he be allowed to keep a half-inch beard.

Arguments made to the Justices were guided by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Prisons Act. The Act, which aims to prevent laws substantially burdening a person’s freedom of religious exercise. Muhammad's legal team will claim if other institutions have successfully accommodated Muslim or Sikh men who grew beards, then the Arkansas Department of Corrections' preferences are unjustifiable and go so far as to infringe upon rights to religious practice.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ADC’s policy to prohibit beards was an authorized exercise of the prison’s security interest. However, opponents say that deferring to security interests unfairly discriminates against Muslims and Sikhs, while contributing to an ongoing misunderstanding of their religious practices.

Given the discriminatory connotations in the case, one prominent national Muslim activist group has shown their support for the Muslim inmate. The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has submitted an amicus brief in support of Muhammad's petition. The brief argues that allowing Mr. Muhammad to grow a beard is important to preserving his right to the free exercise of religion and would not pose a significant threat to prison security.

"We believe that Mr. Muhammad’s request is not only central to his sincerely held religious beliefs, but also instrumental to religious exercise," stated Saif Inam, Policy Analyst for MPAC. "Other penal institutions have successfully accommodated religious grooming practices similar to those within Mr. Muhammad’s request without undermining security interests. There is no reason that Arkansas cannot do the same."

Muhammad is serving a life sentence for a brutal assault on his girlfriend and is being held at a maximum security prison 80 miles southeast of Little Rock. His case first came to the court’s attention when he filed a handwritten plea to the court asking it to block enforcement of Arkansas’ no-beard rule.

Muhammad argued in court papers that his obligation to grow a beard comes from hadiths, accounts of the acts or statements of the Prophet Muhammad. In one statement attributed to the prophet, Muslims are commanded to “cut the mustaches short and leave the beard.”

Muhammad said he understands that statement to mean he should grow a full beard, but offered a half-inch beard as a compromise because California allows Muslim inmates to wear beards of that length.

"While the Quran does not require the beard, MPAC believes that those who believe it is an obligation should receive an accommodation," stated Inam. "Furthermore, prison officials should be provided with training on religious practices in order to protect prisoners from undue bias and misunderstanding."

Several justices were openly skeptical of arguments made by a lawyer for Arkansas in defense of the state’s no-beard policy, which has no exception for religious beliefs.

The state has a legitimate security interest in prohibiting beards because prisoners can hide items in them and change their appearance by shaving, Arkansas Deputy Attorney General David Curran said.

Justice Samuel Alito, sounding like the prosecutor he once was, suggested a simple solution to the concealment issue: Give the inmate a comb and instruct him to comb the beard. “If there’s anything in there, if there’s a SIM card in there or a revolver or anything else you think can be hidden in a 1/2-inch beard, a tiny revolver, it’ll fall out,” Alito said to laughter.

Curran agreed. “That sounds like something that could be done,” he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also elicited some agreement from the Arkansas lawyer when she said, “You have no comparable rule about hair on one’s head, where it seems more could be hidden than in the beard.”

A decision is expected by late spring in Holt v. Hobbs, 13-6827.