Holt v. Hobbs: Relious Freedoms in Prison

            Gregory Houston Holt, aka Abdul Maalik Muhammad v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al., CI 12-3185 began when a man of Muslin belief wanted to exercise his belief by leaving his beard untrimmed entirely. However, this was prohibited by the Arkansas Department of Corrections. Holt then filed a motion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. He was denied in the lower courts and has thus come in front of the Supreme Court of the United States (Holt v. Hobbs, 2013). The purpose of this paper is to examine this case and make a prediction of what the Supreme Court will decide based on the laws used to argue the case and the precedents that are in place. This paper will examine the laws that are in place and then explore the cases that have set precedents that will affect the Court’s decision in this case.

            The act that the Holt filed his petition on was the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (Holt v. Hobbs, 2013). This act prohibited state and local correctional institutions from placing “arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions” on the religious freedoms and practices of the prisoners within the institution (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act). What must be determined with this case is whether the restriction on untrimmed beards is “arbitrary and unnecessary”. However, we will first begin by exploring the other cases in which the Court has found in favor and against the exercise of a religious right in a correctional facility and the factors that were used to decide these cases.

            One case that appears to apply almost directly to the Holt v. Hobbs case is Meir Kahane v. Norman Carlson, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al. This case involved a Jewish rabbi that had wanted to reform the prison policies to adhere to his religious beliefs. His religious beliefs that were affected were his diet and prayer. The Court found that there was a need for relief in the prison policies so that the inmate can practice his beliefs while incarcerated (Meir Kahane v. Norman Carlson, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al. 527 F.2d 492, 1975). This case directly displays the Court finding in favor of religious freedom among prison inmates and shows that a need for relief in policies has been found. We can apply this to the Holt v. Hobbs case. However, this case does not address the issue of safety that is argued in the Holt v. Hobbs case so this case would need to be applied lightly.

            In Holt v. Hobbs, the correctional facility argues that contraband can easily be hid in untrimmed beards, thus the reason for their policy against them (Holt v. Hobbs, 2013). O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz is a case that directly relates to safety of the prisoners and of society. The case of O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz was brought forward by a group of individuals who were of Islamic faith. There were several prison policies that prevented the prisoners from attending Jumu'ah, which is a Muslim service that takes place on Friday afternoons. The policies involved restrictions on the mobility and time of those prisoners who were assigned to outside work. The Court found that these policies were perfectly legitimate due to safety reasons and that they did not violate the Free Exercise Clause (O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482. U.S. 342, 1987). This displays that the Court is willing to overlook the right for prisoners to practice their religion in correctional facilities if there is an issue of safety that is displayed as well.

            One case often used as a precedent for the notion of prisoner’s rights is Turner v. Safley. This case involved correspondence between inmates. At this specific facility, the inmates were only allowed to correspond with others in their assigned groups and rehabilitation teams. The Court ruled that this restriction on the prisoners’ communication was necessary because it limited any plans to escape and therefore, was a benefit to society (Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 1987). This case relates more to the safety of society but there is also a threat of a prison riot or attacks in prisons that make it an overall safety issue and must be considered in the analysis of Holt v. Hobbs. This case does not directly relate to religious freedoms in prison but it does show the reasoning for restrictions on prisoners and the argument for safety within a correctional facility.

           

            Finally, we look at a case that does not actually have anything to do with religious rights in prison, but out in society. The case of Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division involved a man who asked to be let go from his position because he was switched to a warehouse that made weapons. He stated that his religious beliefs prohibited him from manufacturing weapons, but the company would not terminate him. He thus decided to quit but this exempt him from unemployment so he filed a case against the review board because he believed this was a restriction on his free exercise of religion. The Court found this policy was restrictive, however, it was the least restrictive hat it could be, which is well in the bounds of not encroaching on someone’s rights (Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707, 1980). The importance of this case becomes clear because it displays the boundaries of encroaching on someone’s rights and the requirements for not doing so. We must examine if the policies being argued in Holt v. Hobbs were the least restrictive that they could be and if they fall into the same bounds as not encroaching on the rights of prisoners by already being the least restrictive they can be.

            Now, we must look at the specific facts of the Holt v. Hobbs case and analyze these facts to determine what the Court’s decision would be. This case has already come before the Supreme Court before, but they are rehearing it as if it is coming to them for the first so I will do the same with my analysis. This is also do to the fact that they have removed their first opinion from the Supreme Court website so I am unable to locate that first opinion.

            As stated before, this case came about when Abdul Muhammad (Holt) wanted to keep his beard untrimmed in its entirety per his religious practices. The correctional facility, Arkansas Department of Corrections, claimed that it was a safety issue as contraband could be easily hidden a beard that was untrimmed (Holt v. Hobbs, 2013). For the safety of the officers, it is important to minimize the places that prisoners are able to hide contraband. Most people think contraband only pertains to cigarettes or candy, but these could be sharpened objects that are deadly to officers and other prisoners.

            As we see in Meir Kahane v. Norman Carlson, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., the Court has decided in the past that prisons need to have more relief when it comes to the restrictions on prisoners (Meir Kahane v. Norman Carlson, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al. 527 F.2d 492, 1975). We would reasonably assume that the Court would take this into consideration when looking at the Holt v. Hobbs case, as it is really only a beard. However, the safety issue needs to be taken into consideration.

            There are two cases that relate to the safety that are explored above: O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz and Turner v. Safley. In both of these cases, the Court decided that the safety was more important than the freedom of religion for prisons (Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 1987) (O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482. U.S. 342, 1987). So safety is the most important issue of this case and if there are grounds for the correctional facility’s claim of the contraband being able to be hidden in a beard. When I was first reading this case, it seemed absurd that anyone could think that contraband could be hidden in a beard. However, with a large beard that is untrimmed (the point of the case), it would not be that difficult to hide contraband in the back of the beard.

            Due to this safety concern, it is my opinion that the Court would follow the lead of the O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz and Turner v. Safley and side with the correctional facility. Unfortunately, this would appear to be the perfect fit for the safety concern. I say unfortunately because I dislike the idea of taking any more rights away from prisoners than they are already stripped of. Prisoners already have so many rights taken away from them and it is unfortunate that their own personal beliefs are restricted as well. Nevertheless, there is a reason for these restrictions and I believe that the Court will see the safety as an issue and more important of an issue than the religious beliefs of the prisoner.