AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Personal Appearance
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Religious Freedom in
Correctional Facilities (II) --Appearance and Apparel 2007 (4)
AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Rights of Rastafarian
Employees and Inmates, 2015 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
A prisoner argued that Georgia prisons
enforced a grooming policy that violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., by substantially burdening his exercise of
a sincerely held religious belief that Islam requires him to grow an uncut beard.
Overturning summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court ruled
that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Holt
v. Hobbs, #13-6827, 574 U.S. ——, 135 S. Ct. 853, 190 L. Ed. 2d 747
(2015) (holding that the Arkansas Department of Corrections grooming
policy violated the RLUIPA insofar as it prevented a prisoner from
growing a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs), made
the trial court’s analysis inadequate because it failed to analyze the
substantial burden placed on the prisoner’s religious beliefs, whether
correctional authorities had a compelling interest, or whether the least
restrictive means of furthering that interest was utilized. The plaintiff argued that by allowing medical but not
religious exemptions from the grooming policy, the defendants showed that they
were not utilizing the least restrictive means of furthering their interests in
security and hygiene. Smith v. Owens, #14-10981, (11th Cir.).
A
Muslim prisoner claimed that his rights under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. were violated
by the prison's grooming regulations denying permission to grow a
"fist-length" beard not to exceed four inches and to wear a religious
kufi. The trial court upheld thesec claims, granting declaratory and injunctive
relief. Upholding this result, a federal appeals court agreed that the prison
officials had not met their burden in failing to demonstrate that the
prohibitions in question were the least restrictive means of furthering
compelling interests in preventing contraband, providing inmate identification,
orderly program administration, and cost control. Ali v. Stephens, #14-41165,
2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7964 (5th Cir.).
Alabama correctional
officials were properly granted a judgment in their favor on Native American
inmates' claims that the failure to allow their hair unshorn as required by
their religion violated their rights under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. The
defendants presented ample evidence that their policy was necessary to
accomplish a number of compelling goals, which included the prevention of
concealment of contraband, facilitation of inmate identification, maintenance
of good hygiene and health, and facilitation of prison discipline through
uniformity. It was also proven that the hair-length policy was the least
restrictive means of furthering these compelling governmental interests. Knight
v. Thompson, #12-11926, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 13668 (11th Cir.).
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a correctional
policy that prohibited prisoners from growing beards (with an exception for
inmates with a diagnosed skin condition allowed to grow 1/4 inch beards)
violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.
2000cc-1(a), when used to deny a sincerely devout Muslim prisoner the right to
grow a 1/2-inch beard as required by his religious beliefs. The rights granted
by the statute are not limited to beliefs shared by all practitioners of a
religion. The defendants failed to show that enforcing the policy in this
manner served the stated compelling interests in safety, keeping out
contraband, and preventing inmates from quickly changing their appearance. It
would be difficult to hide contraband by such a short beard, and hair on the
head was allowed to be that length. It was not shown that security concerns
could not be satisfied by searching such beards. Requiring prisoners to be
photographed both with and without beards would be a less restrictive means of
preventing them from being able to quickly change appearance, such as during an
escape. The opinion noted that many other institutions allowed facial fair.Holt
v. Hobbs, #13-6827, 2015 U.S. Lexis 626.
Prohibiting male Native American inmates from
wearing their hair unshorn, as mandated by their religion, did not violate
their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. Correctional officials met their burden
of showing that the hair-length policy amounted to the least restrictive means
available of furthering compelling governmental interest such as facilitating
inmate identification, preventing the introduction of contraband, encouraging
prison discipline through uniformity, promoting good health and hygiene, and
safeguarding public safety in the event of escapes during which inmates with
long hair could quickly alter their appearances to prevent recapture. Knight v.
Thompson, #12-11926, , 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 15247 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner who is a member of the African Hebrew
Israelites of Jerusalem took a "Nazirite vow," that committed him not
to cut his hair. When he had to appear in court, the prison gave him a choice
of either having a haircut to cut his dreadlocks or segregation as a punishment
for avoiding his scheduled trip to court. He chose the haircut, but claimed
that this violated his right to religious freedom. A federal appeals court
rejected this claim, noting that the "Nazirite vow" was an optional
rather than mandatory observance of his religion and that past precedent
recognizes the validity of rules regulating prisoner's hairstyles for reasons
of security. Lewis v. Sternes, #11-3297, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 6154 (7th Cir.).
It was against a Rastafarian prisoner's religious
beliefs to comb or cut his hair, which he wore in dreadlocks. When he learned
that his mother had cancer, he asked for a transfer to another facility closer
to her, which was granted. When he was to be transported to his new facility,
an officer allegedly refused to permit him to board the transport vehicle when
he declined to comply with a state correctional policy requiring him to comb
out his dreadlocks. The officer's supervisor then presented the plaintiff with
a choice of either cutting his hair or not going through with the approved
transfer. The prisoner offered instead to let the officers pat down his hair
and use a metal detector to make sure that no contraband was hidden there. The
transfer was canceled and the prisoner placed in administrative segregation. He
was later transferred, after he cut his hair. A federal appeals court upheld
the dismissal of his lawsuit, finding no violation of his right to religious
freedom, despite his argument that he was improperly forced to choose between
violating his religious beliefs and going to a prison closer to his ill mother.
The officers were entitled to qualified immunity, as it was not clearly
established that enforcement of the policy that hair be cut or combed out
violated the prisoner's rights. Stewart v. Beach, #12-3013, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 25846 (10th Cir.).
Because failure to grow a beard was considered a
sin equivalent in severity to eating pork for a Muslim inmate, his lawsuit over
a policy prohibiting him from growing a one-eighth inch beard stated a claim
for violation of his right to religious freedom. Prison officials failed to
adequately explain how their policy was justified by health or security
concerns, or that they used the least restrictive means of satisfying a
compelling governmental interest. Couch v. Jabe, #11-6560, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis
9602 (4th Cir.).
After a prison chaplain allegedly advised him
that only Rastafarianism requires the growing of dreadlocks, a correctional officer
ordered that an African Hebrew Israelite inmate's dreadlocks be sheared.
Summary judgment for the defendant officer was reversed. "Since heresy is
not excluded from the protection of the free exercise clause, optional as
distinct from mandatory religious observations aren't excluded either." If
the prisoner's desire to grow dreadlocks was based on a sincere religious
belief, it was entitled to protection, even if unorthodox, particularly if
followers of another religion were allowed to wear dreadlocks. Grayson v.
Schuler, #10-3256, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 730 (7th Cir.).
A Rastafarian prisoner claimed that a corrections
officer violated his religious rights by touching his dreadlock hair without
permission. While the jury held in favor of the prisoner, they only awarded
nominal damages of $1. Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d)(2) of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the court's award of attorney's fees to the
prevailing plaintiff were limited to 150% of the damage award, or $1.50. The
appeals court noted that Congress, in granting a statutory right for prevailing
plaintiffs in federal civil rights lawsuits to be granted attorneys' fees,
departed from the normal rule in U.S. courts that litigants all pay their own
attorneys' fees. It was accordingly also free to put a cap on such fees in
cases brought by prisoners. Shepherd v. Goord, #10-4821, 2011 U.S. App.
Lexis 22928 (2nd Cir.).
An Orthodox Jewish prisoner failed to show that a
prison's shaving policy, which limited beards to a length of 1/4 of an inch,
violated his right to religious freedom. The policy was rationally related to a
legitimate and substantial interest in maintaining prison security, and was the
least restrictive means of accomplishing that objective. Kuperman v. Wrenn,
#10-2083, 645 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2011).
A federal appeals court found that a prisoner had
sufficiently alleged that disciplining him for refusing to comply with prison
body-piercing regulations imposed a substantial burden on the exercise of his
religious beliefs. The trial court had determined that these beliefs were
sincerely held. The appeals court ordered further proceedings on whether the
piercing regulation was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling
government interest. Cortez v. Noll, #09-15690, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20583
(Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A California prisoner received several
disciplinary citations for wearing a beard that he asserted he had to have for
religious reasons. The regulations that prohibited the beard were amended so
that his beard was no longer prohibited, but the disciplinary citations
remained in his prison file, and he wanted them expunged, based on the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person's Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc,
et seq. ("RLUIPA"). A federal appeals court ruled that the trial
court improperly dismissed this claim. The state did not argue that the
prisoner's rights under the statute had not been violated when the discipline
occurred, and the fact that the citations remained in his file, and that
harmful references to them could potentially be made, meant that his claim was
not moot because the policy in question had been modified. His claims for
expungement and injunctive relief would be considered upon remand. Quillar v.
Calif. Dept. of Corrections, #08-15414, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17462 (Unpub. 9th
Cir.).
A California state prisoner claimed that prison
grooming regulations violated his right to religious freedom. While the trial
court initially issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the
regulations, ultimately it dismissed the prisoner's claims for lack of
jurisdiction. It then nevertheless awarded the plaintiff prisoner attorneys'
fees. A federal appeals court ruled that the attorneys' fee award was erroneous
when the trial court never found an actual violation of the prisoner's rights.
Kimbrough v. State of Cal.; #08-17231, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13039 (9th Cir.).
An Illinois prisoner argued that forcing him to
cut his dreadlocks, which he wore for religious reasons, violated his
constitutional and statutory rights. The court found, however, that the policy
at issue was justified by undisputed evidence that matted hair created a danger
to both guards and officers from concealed weapons and other contraband. The
court also found no evidence of unlawful "retaliation" in punishing
the prisoner for disobeying direct orders to cut his hair, and commented that
the prisoner's claim that prison authorities inconsistently implemented their
hair length policy did not show a constitutional violation in the absence of
any evidence that deviations from the policy were for illegitimate reasons.
Williams v. Snyder, #08-1908, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4777 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A Native American prisoner's claims that his
right to religious freedom was violated by regulations limiting his hair length
and limiting his wearing of a medicine pouch were reinstated by a federal
appeals court. The court ruled that the trial court had failed to consider
whether wearing a small patch of long hair as a "kouplock" instead of
a full head of long hair actually posed a security risk and failed to apply the
proper "compelling governmental interest" and "least restrictive
alternative" requirements to the medicine pouch restrictions. Odneal v.
Pierce, #06-41165, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7096 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prison policy prohibiting all inmates from
wearing beards unless they had a medical exception, which contained no
religious exception, was properly upheld by the trial court based on security
and discipline concerns, including the need to properly identify inmates and
the possibility that contraband and weapons could be carried in beards. A
proposed alternative policy allowing a religious exception for quarter-inch
beards was not financially or administratively feasible, and the existing
policy was therefore the "least restrictive means" of satisfying the
discipline and security concerns. Gooden v. Crain, #08-40966, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 25656 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A Texas prisoner claimed that he had pseudofolliculitis
barbae (PFB), a medical condition on the basis of which he was issued a clipper
shave pass (CSP) which constituted permission not to shave and to maintain a
1/4" beard. He further claimed that prison employees improperly threatened
him with disciplinary action for failing to shave, imposed discipline on him on
that basis, and declined to renew his CSP in retaliation for his complaints.
These claims were all rejected, as the record indicated that the discipline was
imposed for failing to maintain a 1/4" beard, not for failure to be
clean-shaven. He also failed to show that his medical condition was serious and
posed a risk of substantial harm, or that he was subjected to retaliation.
James v. Ramirez, No. 07-50674, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 83 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
The hair length and facial hair policies of the
Arkansas Department of Corrections were justified by the need to minimize the
smuggling of contraband and reduce opportunities for prisoners disguising
themselves by removing hair, and did not violate religious freedom rights under
the First Amendment or under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc et seq. The court also rejected an
equal protection claim based on valid reasons for differing hair length
requirements for men and women. Additionally, there was evidence that longer
beards created security and safety concerns absent when a prisoner is either
clean shaven or has facial hair no longer than quarter-inch long. Appeals court
also upholds an award of $1,500 to a prisoner on a claim that he was improperly
not provided with Kosher meals. Fegans v. Norris, No. 06-3473, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 17072 (8th Cir.).
The New Jersey Department of Corrections'
training academy no-facial hair policy was facially neutral and only
incidentally burdened religious conduct. It was rationally related to
compliance with federal and state health regulations concerning the use of
respirator masks and to a concern about the esprit de corps, which comes from
uniformity of appearance. It therefore did not violate the rights of a Muslim
trainee removed from the training program when he failed, on three separate
occasions, to keep his beard within parameters allowed to him as an
accommodation of his religion. The policy would be lawful, the court stated,
under any standard of review, including strict scrutiny. Valdes v. New Jersey,
No. 07-2971, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 17380 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Rastafarian prisoner presented a viable claim
that his clearly established constitutional right to religious freedom and his
federal statutory rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc-1(1)(1), (2) were violated by a
prohibition on him growing his hair in dreadlocks. The warden was found to have
acted in an objectively unreasonable manner in insisting that the prisoner be
prohibited from growing dreadlocks. Further, the court reasoned that a decision
by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to provide religious
exceptions for hair grooming in its grooming code supported the prisoner's
argument that growing his hair into dreadlocks was a legitimate part of his
exercise of his religion. The warden failed to show that the dreadlocks would
constitute a security problem. Johnson v. Collins, No. 3:07 CV 211, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 52127 (N.D. Ohio).
Two Rastafarian prisoners and three Muslim
prisoners claimed that an inmate grooming policy prohibiting them from wearing
beards violated their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5. A
federal appeals court rejected these claims, based on a record and established
case law showing a need for suppressing contraband, maintaining discipline and
security, maintaining inmate and staff health and safety, and preventing
prisoners from quickly changing their appearance. The court also found that a
suggested "less restrictive means" of serving these "compelling
governmental interests," which was transferring inmates with such
religious beliefs to other prison systems without similar grooming policies,
was not "workable." McRae v. Johnson, No. 06-7548, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 246 (4th Cir.).
California prison officials were entitled to
qualified immunity for the discipline of a Sikh inmate in 2001 and 2002 for
refusing to cut his hair since it was not clearly established until 2005 in
Warsoldier v. Woodford, No. 04-55879, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005), that a
regulation requiring inmates to have short hair imposed a substantial burden on
an inmate's practice of religion under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc-1(a). Haley
v. Donovan, No. 06-55856, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 23236 (9th Cir.).
Grooming regulation that required a Rastafarian
prisoner to cut his hair to a specified maximum length, in violation of his
religious beliefs, did not violate his First Amendment rights because it was
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Additionally it was not
clearly established that it would violate a prisoner's Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights to subject him to discipline for violating the regulation, so
that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on those claims. The court's
decision did not discuss the merits of the prisoner's claims under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc(a)(1), which remains pending. Hypolite v. California Dept. of
Corrections, No. CIV S-05-0428, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55317 (E.D. Cal.).
State prison's grooming policy did not violate a
Rastafarian prisoner's rights to religious freedom under either the First
Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc by punishing him for his religious practice of wearing his
hair and beard uncut. The policy furthered compelling governmental interests in
inmate identification, inmate health, staff safety, and institutional security,
and the proposal that a religious exception to the policy be granted was not
workable. Ragland v. Angelone, No. 7:02 CV 00786, 420 F. Supp. 2d 507 (W.D. Va.
2006). [N/R]
While inmate's belief that "the Creator
Yahweh" mandated that he should not cut his hair was a sincerely held
religious belief, a prison policy which limited "Afro style" hair
length to four inches was reasonably related to legitimate prison interests in
preventing the concealment and transportation of contraband, aiding in the
identification of inmates, and improving inmate hygiene. These legitimate
interests outweighed any rights the prisoner had to wear his hair in long
dreadlocks. Meggett v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 892 A.2d 872 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2006). [N/R]
Texas state prison policy prohibiting a Muslim
prisoner from having a beard did not violate his right to religious freedom
under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc, because of the need for accurate pictures of inmates for
security purposes. Additionally, he was not denied equal protection by the fact
that inmates with certain skin conditions were allowed to have quarter-inch
beards, since the policy prohibiting beards for other reasons was equally
applied to all religious groups and was adopted for security purposes. Gooden
v. Crain, No. 6:04cv127, 405 F. Supp. 2d 714 (E.D. Tex. 2005). [N/R]
New York prison regulations prohibiting a
prisoner from wearing "corn row" braids if the hair went below the
"natural hairline" did not violate his free speech or his equal
protection rights as an African-American, but were justified by valid
penological interests in security, including preventing prisoners from quickly
changing their appearance after an escape and facilitating searches of hair for
contraband. Towles v. Eagen, 799 N.Y.S.2d 715 (Sup. 2005). [N/R]
Overturning injunction allowing Native American
prisoner to wear a "kouplock" (a square section at the base of the
skull where the hair is allowed to grow long), federal appeals court finds that
the trial judge failed to give proper deference to prison officials on the
issue of whether long hair on a prisoner presented security problems. Hoevenaar
v. Lazaroff, No. 03-4119, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19361 (6th Cir.). [2005 JB Oct]
Native American inmate was improperly denied an
injunction against California hair grooming policy which failed to provide a
relig ious exemption to short hair requirement. Correctional officials failed
to adequately show that this was the least restrictive means of achieving compelling
interests in prison security. Warsoldier v. Woodford, No. 04-55879, 2005 U.S.
App. Lexis 15599 (9th Cir.). [2005 JB Sep]
Prisoner who is an adherent of the Hebrew
Israelite/Nazarite religious group and wears "dreadlocks" as a
result, stated a claim for violation of his right to practice his religion in
challenging prison policy which limits "Afro style" hair to four
inches in length. Trial court finds that there was a viable claim that the
prisoner was entitled to a religious exemption from this grooming policy based
on his sincerely held religious beliefs. Meggett v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections,
856 A.2d 277 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). [N/R]
California prison regulation which prohibiting
inmates from wearing long hair was reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests such as security, hygiene, prison workplace safety, and prevention of
escapes. Accordingly, the regulation did not violate either the First Amendment
of a Native American prisoner or a federal statute concerning Native American
religious freedom. Henderson v. Terhune, #02-17224, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 16613
(9th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
A policy of disciplining Muslim prisoners who
missed their work assignments so that they could attend an hour long Friday
Sabbath worship service violated their rights under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc, because this was
not the least restrictive means of satisfying a compelling governmental
interest in keeping prisoners occupied or of using their labor to support the
upkeep of the prison. Court also rejects prison grooming policy that imposed
penalties on Muslim prisoners who refused to shave their beards for religious
reasons, as prison officials also failed to show that this was the least
restrictive means of addressing concerns about prisoners' ability to quickly
change their appearance after escape. Mayweathers v. Terhune, 328 F. Supp. 2d
1086 (E.D. Cal. 2004). [N/R]
Correctional employee's "non-theistic"
spiritual belief that he should not cut his hair was not a protected religious
belief sufficient to challenge the state correctional department's grooming
policy, since it was merely based on his own "personal and
philosophical" choices. His desire to "live simply and avoid excessive
pride" did not qualify for a possible religious exemption from the
grooming policy. Luken v. Brigano, #CA2003-01-007, 797 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio. App.
12 Dist. 2003). [N/R]
Rastafarian prisoner's equal protection challenge
against California prison hair length regulation should not have been dismissed
for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies when defendant prison
officials failed to establish such a failure to exhaust. Federal appeals court
rules that failure to exhaust is a defense, with the burden on the defendants
to establish it. Wyatt v. Terhune, #00-16568, 305 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2002).
[2003 JB Feb.]
Federal Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) action of
housing federal prisoners who were Rastafarians or Muslims in Virginia state
facilities with a grooming policy prohibiting long hair and beards violated the
prisoners' rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Court orders BOP
to transfer such prisoners to other facilities. Gartrell v. Ashcroft, 191 F.
Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2002). [2002 JB Aug]
Rastafarian prisoner's claim that prison's denial
of his request to wear dreadlocks violated his right to religious freedom and
constituted sex discrimination was improperly dismissed by trial court without
fair notice and opportunity to be heard being provided to prisoner, who was
acting as his own lawyer. Appeals court also rules that exhaustion of remedies
provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act is an affirmative defense, rather
than a pleading requirement, with the burden on the defendants to show
non-exhaustion. Wyatt v. Terhune, #00-16568, 280 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2002).
[2002 JB Jun]
299:174 Muslim prisoner could pursue claim that
his equal protection rights were violated by prison allowing inmates with
certain medical conditions to wear three-quarter-inch beards while denying his
request to wear a one-quarter-inch beard for religious purposes. Taylor v.
Johnson, #00-21155, 257 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 2001).
290:26 Requirement that Muslim prisoner be clean
shaven, and not allowing him even a 1/4 inch beard, was not a violation of his
rights, despite allowance of 3/4 inch beards for inmates with medical
conditions aggravated by shaving. Green v. Polunsky, No. 00-40156, 229 F.3d 486
(5th Cir. 2000).
EDITOR'S NOTE: Other federal appeals courts
considering the issue of short beards have upheld prison grooming policies. See
Hines v. South Darolina Dept. of Corrections, 148 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 1998);
Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir. 1996); and Friedman v. Arizona, 912
F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1990).
It should also be noted that the above decision,
while dated Oct. 18, 2000, almost a month after the enactment of the new
federal "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act,"
Public Law 106-274 (Sep. 22, 2000), see Jail & Prisoner Law Bulletin No.
287, p. 173 (Nov. 2000), does not apply the legal test stated in that statute,
requiring that an action that imposes a substantial burden on religious
practices or beliefs must be justified as in furtherance of a "compelling
governmental interest" and used the "least restrictive means" of
furthering that interest.
294:93 Virginia prison policy mandating short
hair, which had no exception for religious objections, upheld by federal court
as "neutral" policy with only "incidental" impact on
religious practices; court rejects claim that different hair length standards
for male and female prisoners violates equal protection. DeBlasio v. Johnson,
128 F. Supp. 2d 315 (E.D. Va. 2000).
284:118 Native American correctional officer
should be allowed to wear his hair long (but pinned under his cap) to
accommodate his religion, Ohio Supreme Court holds. Humphrey v. Lane, #99-206,
728 N.E.2d 1039 (Ohio 2000).
277:10 Rastafarian prisoner's claim that prison
requirement that he cut his hair violated his religious rights was not
"frivolous" when there was, as of now, no evidence in the record
concerning any security concerns which justified the requirement. Cofer v.
Schriro, #99-1852, 176 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 1999).
EDITOR'S NOTE: See also Williams v. Norris, No.
99-1743, 176 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999). (Rastafarian prisoner's lawsuit against
prison rule prohibiting him from wearing his hair in "dreadlocks" was
improperly dismissed because prisoner complied with Prison Litigation Reform
Act's "exhaustion of administrative remedies" requirement, since his
grievance had been denied by the Warden and the Assistant Director of the state
Department of Corrections at the time the court acted).
229:7 Federal trial court rejects N.Y.
correctional department's arguments that requiring Rastafarian correctional
officers to cut their modified dreadlocks furthered a compelling governmental
interest in security, discipline and esprit de corps. Brown v. Keane, 888
F.Supp. 568 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
237:139 Absolute prohibition on Muslim inmate
wearing a beard violated Religious Freedom Restoration Act when inmate
sincerely believed his religion required him to do so, even if there was
evidence that the Koran did not require this; complete ban on beards was not
"least restrictive means" of satisfying security interests, when
warden testified that a 1/4" beard would not be a security problem and
were already allowed for medical reasons; defendants entitled to qualified
immunity from liability, however. Lewis v. Scott, 910 F.Supp. 282 (E.D. Tex.
1995).
224:124 Native American prisoner's religious
freedom rights were not violated by requirement that he cut his hair short and
keep his medicine pouch and headband stored in his cell. Diaz v. Collins, 872
F.Supp. 353 (E.D. Tex. 1994).
Rules requiring Native American inmate to cut his
hair, as well as prohibiting his possession of various religious articles while
in administrative segregation, did not violate his rights and were based on legitimate
security concerns. Bettis v. Delo, 14 F.3d 22 (8th Cir. 1994).
Federal appeals court upholds award of damages to
four black Iowa inmates ordered to cut their "shag" haircuts; prison
officials' claim that they were attempting to curtail gang activity is ruled
"pretextual." Quinn v. Nix, 983 F.2d 115 (8th Cir. 1993).
Prisoners who claimed a sincere religious belief
against cutting hair were entitled to preliminary injunction against
application of prison grooming code forbidding hair more than three inches in
length. Longstreth v. Maynard, 961 F.2d 895 (10th Cir. 1992).
Prison rule requiring short hair was justified by
legitimate security concerns and therefore did not violate religious freedom
rights of Rastafarian inmates. Scott v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, 961
F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1992).
Prison prohibition on long hair and beards did
not violate prisoners' right to free exercise of religion; grooming regulation
was rationally related to legitimate prison security and hygiene concerns.
Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1992).
Prison rules requiring haircuts and requiring
clean shaven appearance for identification photographs did not violate
prisoners' religious rights because of a strong interest in preventing escapes.
Harris v. Dugger, 757 F.Supp. 1359 (S.D. Fla. 1991); Perry v. Davies, 757
F.Supp. 1223 (D. Kan. 1991).
Rastafarian inmates could not be required to cut
their "dreadlocks," but could be prohibited from wearing religious
"crowns." Benjamin v. Coughlin, 905 F.2d 571 (2nd Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 372 (1990).
Prison policy prohibiting inmate beards over two
inches long did not violate religious freedom rights of Aryan Nation church
member. Dunavant v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77 (8th Cir. 1990).
Prison officials failed to justify treating one
religious group different from others who were exempted from prison grooming
policies against long hair and beards. Swift v. Lewis, 901 F.2d 730 (9th Cir.
1990).
Requiring Rastafarian inmate to get haircut for
identification photograph violated religious freedom. Benjamin v. Coughlin, 708
F.Supp. 570 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Valid security interests outweighed any right of
inmate to grow hair long as required by American Indian religion. Pollock v. Marshall,
845 F.2d 656 (6th Cir. 1988).
Prohibiting "dreadlock" hairstyle of
inmates supported by security reasons; guard may be present at inmate religious
meetings. Reed v. Faulkner, 653 F. Sup. 965 (N.D. Ind. 1987).
Prison regulation prohibiting beards was valid;
no infringement on religion. McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1983).
Sixth circuit orders review of Ohio prison policy
requiring inmate to cut his hair; finds that religious rights may have been
violated. Weaver v. Jago, 675 F.2d 116 (6th Cir. 1982).
Appeals court rules that suit by inmate which he
claimed that hair grooming standards infringed his religious freedom was not
frivolous. Dreibelbis v. Marks, 675 F.2d 579 (3rd Cir. 1982).