Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827, regarding a prisoner's right to have a religiously mandated beard under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The Court decided unanimously that a 1/2 inch beard posed no threat to an institutional need that outweighed the prisoner's right to free exercise of religion. The state had not articulated a good reason for not allowing it.
The result in this case doesn't bother me too much. I am more concerned about the more extravagant applications of RLUIPA, such as the worshippers of Odin and their Annual Pork Feast. No, I'm not making this up.
The result in this case doesn't bother me too much. I am more concerned about the more extravagant applications of RLUIPA, such as the worshippers of Odin and their Annual Pork Feast. No, I'm not making this up.
RLUIPA is the result of an odd back-and-forth between Congress and the Supreme Court and some political odd bedfellows. The history is traced on pages 2 and 3 of the opinion.
RFRA was an attempt to abrogate Smith using the Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No dice as to the States, said the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997), although RFRA is still the law as to the federal government. So Congress came back with RLUIPA, using the spending and commerce powers and limited to two areas -- land use (zoning) and institutionalized persons. The latter was the result of an unusual coalition of mostly conservative religious folks and most liberal prisoner rights advocates.
So what we have is a regime where a prisoner asserts a religious exemption from some rule that all other prisoners have to follow, and the burden shifts to the prison administration to show a compelling reason why he needs to obey the rule as well. Burdens carried by the state in such cases are dollars not available for other government purposes.
We should keep in mind that people in prison for extended stays are generally people who have committed major violations of the rights of others. In the case of Holt/Muhammad, according to the state's brief (emphasis added):
Religion can aid in rehabilitation, and it is good penal policy to allow, if not encourage, religious practice among inmates. RLUIPA went too far, in my view, giving too large a role to federal courts and shifting the balance too far in favor of inmates demanding special treatment.
I wasn't able to find any further developments on the Odin worshippers and the Annual Pork Feast, BTW, so if anyone knows what happened there on remand from the Seventh Circuit, please let us know.
Congress enacted RLUIPA and its sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. ยง2000bb et seq., "in order to provide very broad protection for religious liberty." Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 4). RFRA was enacted three years after our decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990), which held that neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden the exercise of religion usually do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Id., at 878-882. Smith largely repudiated the method of analysis used in prior free exercise cases like Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963). In those cases, we employed a balancing test that considered whether a challenged government action that substantially burdened the exercise of religion was necessary to further a compelling state interest. See Yoder, supra, at 214, 219; Sherbert, supra, at 403, 406.
RFRA was an attempt to abrogate Smith using the Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No dice as to the States, said the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997), although RFRA is still the law as to the federal government. So Congress came back with RLUIPA, using the spending and commerce powers and limited to two areas -- land use (zoning) and institutionalized persons. The latter was the result of an unusual coalition of mostly conservative religious folks and most liberal prisoner rights advocates.
So what we have is a regime where a prisoner asserts a religious exemption from some rule that all other prisoners have to follow, and the burden shifts to the prison administration to show a compelling reason why he needs to obey the rule as well. Burdens carried by the state in such cases are dollars not available for other government purposes.
We should keep in mind that people in prison for extended stays are generally people who have committed major violations of the rights of others. In the case of Holt/Muhammad, according to the state's brief (emphasis added):
In January 2005, for example, he was indicted by a federal grand jury for threatening to kidnap and harm the two daughters of President George W. Bush. A few years after pleading guilty to those charges, he broke into the home of his ex-girlfriend, slit her throat, and stabbed her chest, reminding her that he could break in "anytime [he] wanted to" and that nobody else could "have" his victim if Petitioner could not. Holt v. State, 384 S.W.3d 498, 502 (Ark. 2011). Prior to his trial, Petitioner advised Randy Morgan, Chief of Detention at the Pulaski County Detention Facility, that should his trial "go south," he intended to "wage jihad against any court personnel, detectives, [and] adverse witnesses. . . ." Id. at 505. He warned that he would "do whatever it takes to get these individuals, as Allah is my witness." Id.The Fourteenth Amendment says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." States may deprive persons of life, liberty, or property with due process of law. Being able to go where you want, dress as you like, and wear your hair and beard as you like are some of the liberties you give up when you choose to slit someone's throat and stab her in the chest.
Religion can aid in rehabilitation, and it is good penal policy to allow, if not encourage, religious practice among inmates. RLUIPA went too far, in my view, giving too large a role to federal courts and shifting the balance too far in favor of inmates demanding special treatment.
I wasn't able to find any further developments on the Odin worshippers and the Annual Pork Feast, BTW, so if anyone knows what happened there on remand from the Seventh Circuit, please let us know.
Leave a comment