For 10 years inmate Lester Smith has been fighting for his right to practice his beliefs by growing out his beard. Smith is a practicing Muslim and part of that belief entails growing his beard longer then the correctional facilities regulated half an inch length. He pleaded that he should be allowed to grow his beard longer due to religious practices but the Georgia Department of Corrections denied him that right. His request was denied despite the fact that 38 out of the 50 states Bureau of Prisons allow for untrimmed breads and the precedent of Holt v. Hobbs allows for religious practices within prisons.
Holt v. Hobbs was decided in 2011 after Abdul Muhammad, a prisoner in Arkansas, sued in for his right to wear a beard in accordance with his Muslim beliefs. Muhammad won his case unanimously and the right to demonstrate and practice religion within prisons was granted. Prior to this case practicing Jews weren’t allowed to wear yarmulkes, Catholics couldn’t practice confession and other sacraments. Prisons also denied religious diets like Kosher and they also confiscated religious texts like the Bible and the Koran as well as took away religious objects like rosaries, yarmulkes, and other things of that nature. Previously, prisons only observed certain holidays allowing for religious practices on those days, but didn’t respect all religious holidays. The freedom of religion within American prisons was virtually revoked and violated. There were even some instances of correctional facilities bugging Catholic confessionals. After Holt v. Hobbs, this all changed, it was seen as unconstitutional and a human rights violation to deny religious freedoms in prison. While a lot of rights granted to Americans are taken away from prisoners, the Supreme Court voted that the freedom of religion shouldn't be taken away. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or RLUIPA, was instituted. This law prevents the unnecessary restrictions on freedom of religion. The Constitution prevents the inhumane treatment of prisoners and prevents them from cruel and unusual punishment, and RLUIPA extends that to include the unnecessary restrictions on religion.
With RLUIPA and Holt v. Hobbs in mind, Smith brought his case to the Eleventh Circuit where they maintained the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDOC) rule and denied Lester Smith the right to grow his beard due to religious practices. The GDOC argued that because the prison is more risk- averse than the other 38 prisons, Smith growing out his beard created risk. Essentially allowing the GDOC to determine what is considered a religious exemption and what is not. The Eleventh Circuit also cited Knight v. Thompson, a case where a Native American man sued on the grounds of not being able to wear his hair in accordance with his religious beliefs while in a Alabama prison. This Circuit Court decided that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) was within its limits to set a policy that no religious exceptions should be allowed in prison for safety reasons. This case also is widely known as a gross misinterpretation of RLUIPA, as the law stands to heavily favor religious freedom. The decisions of the Eleventh Circuit overlooked crucial evidence regarding the ADOC lack of investigating toward alternative options and even acknowledged the plaintiffs substantial burden in not abiding by his religious practices, yet chose to favor the ADOC.
With two contradicting precedent cases, the Eleventh Circuit, in Lester Smith’s case chose to side with Knight v. Thompson, and denied Smith the right to grow out his beard. This case comes down to, does the Georgia Department of Corrections violate the Constitution and First Amendment freedom of exercise clause by preventing a prisoner from demonstrating his religious beliefs by growing out his beard?
Yes, the GDOC violated the Constitution. First, the Eleventh Circuit is giving the GDOC, a state agency, the ability to determine what is a religious exemption and what is not. The First Amendment prevents the government from favoring or inhibiting the right to religious exercise and allowing a state funded agency to determine what classifies as a religious exemption or not, directly violates that. In addition, the issue of neutrality comes into play. An arbitrary state official gets to decide the classification for what religious exemption is. This allows for bias and other factors to come into play and doesn’t hold the standard of nutraily. In addition to potential bias by the GDOC, the same standard of religious expression is not being held across the board. If Catholics are allowed to pray and Jewish people are allowed to practice Kosher eating then how is growing a beard any different than demonstrating religious beliefs in those ways? That standard of religious neutrality is not being met. They are asking Mr. Smith to choose between following a rule about beard length or violating his personal religious beliefs. This places a substantial moral burden on Lester Smith.
While these cases may be dealing with prisoners who are granted a very limited amount of rights due to their incarceration, they also are protected from cruel and unusual punishment and are expected to be treated humanely. The Constitution agrees that unnecessary restrictions on freedom of religion is considered a violation of those human rights. So not only is the rule made by GDOC not religiously neutral, a violation of State interference in religion, placing a substantial burden on the plaintiff, it also is a violation of human rights.
9 comments:
I strongly disagree with the court’s ruling in this case, and I view this as a breach in the wall of separation between church and state. In this case there is a state agency making decisions on religion and what religious exemptions could be made and what religious practices are allowed. This to me seems like there is no separation between church and state in this specific case. Also, this rule is definitely not neutral in practice as it disparately affects certain religious groups such as Muslims as we see in this post.
I agree with your argument (disagreeing with the court's ruling). The GDOC did violate the Free Exercise clause by not allowing a prisoner to grow out his beard as a demonstration of his religious belief. The first thing I thought of was your point of a state official being able to decide what qualifies as a religious exemption. The reason the First Amendment was created was to take religion out of the public sphere and to take all religious decisions away from the hands of public officials and yet that is exactly what happened in this case. When public officials are left to decide there is more room for bias which is where I would highlight your point of neutrality not being enforced. Catholics and Jews are allowed to practice their religious beliefs in different ways while incarcerated and that’s okay with the Georgia public officials but Mr. Smith isn’t allowed to practice his religious belief through growing a beard?
I tend to agree with your assessment of this case. I believe that this law does not appear to be neutral to all religions, and a singular state official should not have the power to decide which religious practices are allowed and which are not. One thing that would have the potential to sway my opinion is if the state provided substantial evidence that a long beard in prison is in fact a safety issue. If the state was able to prove this, and was consistent on its ruling, and also allowed other required practices in Islam, then I could be able to be persuaded to support the decision. But, from the information provided I do not know if the safety risks are actually substantial enough to justify violating a person's free exercise rights.
I completely agree that the courts were wrong in their decision to uphold the rule of the prison. Religious freedom means being able to practice religious rights, even if your life is hindered by being incarcerated. Being in prison should not mean giving up fundamental freedoms of religion which do not harm other individuals in the prison. This feels like a direct attack on Islamic prisoners and is seemingly rooted in fear in my opinion. There is no neutrality in relation to this decision and I would be shocked if the Supreme Court upheld this decision.
Upon first read, I thought this was a pretty cut-and-dry case. I mean obviously these individuals are being prevented from abiding by their religious beliefs, BUT this makes me think about a previous discussion we had in class. Unless I am understanding the case wrong, it seemed like these correctional facilities were not keeping them from practicing their religion pe se, but rather they are preventing them from engaging in certain acts. On the other hand, this also seems to be targeting the required Islamic practices.
I agree completely with your argument here. Since growing a long beard is an Islamic practice, it is infringing upon the rights of Islamic individuals to deny them the ability to practice their religion by growing a long beard. Even if there is a potential safety risk in this situation it is an extreme violation of the First Amendment to allow the religious practices of certain religions and not others.
I think the most important question that needs to be asked is whether or not a prevailing public interest exists in limiting the length of inmate beards, presumably for health reasons like containing the spread of lice. As long as it serves a legitimate public purpose and is equally applied (so incarcerated Hasidic Jews, Sikhs, and Amish would also be limited in their hair length), I do not believe that such a regulation is inherently unconstitutional. It has long been established by the Supreme Court that free religious exercise can be abridged if the public good is seriously jeopardized by the action. If the health and well-being of other inmates and Lester Smith are substantially endangered by the length of his beard, then this ritual could be prohibited without violating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
I wholly agree with you on this matter. Furthermore, the state is going against the Constitution, by allowing an entanglement with religion and the state to be created. This is one of the evils which the court wanted to prevent under the First Amendment. The state should never be able to decide what counts as religious or not. I too agree that this qualified as cruel and unusual punishment and do not at all understand how a longer beard creates a safety concern of such magnitude that it would triumph religious beliefs. It seems that the state has trouble understanding the significance of the beard of this Muslim man, while allowing other religious practices. Thus they are discriminating specifically against Islam and the free right of this Muslim man to practice his religion.
Post a Comment