Can Correctional Facilities Deny Inmates the Right to Demonstrate Religious Beliefs?

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.