Michigan State Prison v. Female Muslim Prisoners

Individuals give up certain rights when they commit a crime and become incarcerated. However, prisoners are not stripped of all of their rights, and thus there is a slippery slope defining what rights prisoners are still guaranteed while in prison. In the Michigan Prison, Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Pittsfield Township, four Muslim Women filed a Federal Law Suit against the prison stating that the prison violated their Free Exercise Clause by forcing the removal of their religious headwear for mugshot photos. The lawsuit also requests that the Michigan Mugshot law that “prisoners shall wear state-issued clothing for the photograph of their face and headgear shall not be worn” (Gus Burns) be revoked. This law was established by the Michigan Department of Corrections Policy and was created to have uniformity across all prisoner mugshot identification photos. The underlying issue of this lawsuit was that the mugshot policy was ultimately degrading to those in religious minorities, specifically those of the Islamic faith.  

The hijab is an essential accessory and obligation for women of the Islamic faith. It resembles the idea that Muslim women must wear the hijab to prove their loyalty to the Allah. Allah is the Islamic God, and if a Muslim women is seen outside of the household not wearing her hijab, she is believed to be impure. The hijab embodies the modesty of a woman’s figure and represents the privacy of her household. It is required to be worn in public and around those not in a woman’s immediate family. If not worn, a woman is considered exposed to society and is viewed as vulnerable. Ultimately, if a woman is seen without her hijab it is as if she is presenting her naked body for all of society to see. 

The four Muslim women prisoners involved in the Michigan State lawsuit are identified as: Jamia N. Robinson, Semeria Greene, Julia Catlett, and Tracy M. White. All four of these women committed both second degree murder, and or first/second degree child abuse. They have been sentenced to 18+ years of prison. Under the lawsuit, the women demand financial compensation from the government for the prison's unlawful actions and the emotional degradation they faced when forced to remove their headwear for mugshot photos (Gus Burns). Ultimately, the court has to evaluate the circumstances of this case by determining “whether government officials in prisons, police booking rooms or ID issuance offices can legally require the removal of religious headwear, including head scarves or turbans'' (Gus Burns) and comparing it to other precedents. The four female prisoners believe the Prison’s policy violates their Free Exercise of Religion because since wearing their religious headgear does not place a harm on others, the headgear policy should not apply to their religiuos headgear. The women further argue that the headgear policy for mugshots is discriminatory against the Muslim religion and other minority religions in general.

One side could argue that if prisoners wanted protection of their First Amendment rights, then they should not have broken the law. However, Individuals do not forfeit all rights when they become incarcerated, so the question becomes where does one draw the line? The Michigan State Prison has this policy in place because it is most convenient in recognizing & identifying prisoners due to the want for uniformity across all mugshot photos. A precedent in Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) originally ruled that the Air force policy, requiring the dress code and the restriction of wearing religious headgear along with the uniform, was constitutional and not in violation of the Free Exercise clause. This originally was concluded because of the idea of national security & representation of a nation. Thus, it was considered Constitutional for the Air force to restrict Goldman from wearing his Yarmulke on air force base. 

However, this case was later overturned and a new policy was established that religious headgear could now be allowed on the Air Force base, as long as it matched military uniform & did not give other Air Force soldiers the idea that this individual was higher in rank. It is the duty of the court to protect religious minorities against quiet erosions, which explains why this case was overturned. Given the similarity between this case and the lawsuit regarding Michigan State Prison v. Female Muslim Prisoners, the court should rule the Michigan State prison mugshot policy unconstitutional and redefine it.  Religious minorities should be allowed to keep on their religious headgear when required to take a mugshot due to the degradation that results if this headgear is removed in public. Even though these individuals shouldn’t have committed a crime in the first place to avoid facing this policy, it should still be considered unconstitutional as it is discriminatory to minority religions that are obligated to wear headgear in public settings. Requiring the removal of religious headgear ultimately is in violation of the Free Exercise clause because even though the rights of prisoners are limited, the Free Exercise clause is still applicable to prisoners.