Religion & American Law

In Knight v. Thompson,the Supreme Court vacated the ruling made by the Eleventh Circuit appellate court and remanded the case back to the lower court to be decided on new criteria based largely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs.  In Knight v. Thompson, several Native Americans incarcerated in Alabama brought suit against the Alabama Department of Corrections because of the department’s “regular haircut policy.”  These Native American prisoners assert that maintaining long hair is a requirement of their religious beliefs.  Knight v. Thompson is very similar to a case recently decided by the Supreme Court, Holt v. Hobbs. In Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim man—Gregory Holt—incarcerated in an Arkansas prison had the religious right to grow a half-inch beard. By remanding Knight v. Thompson, the Supreme Court is broadening the scope of religious rights granted to prisoners. Additionally, the Supreme Court is demonstrating consistency in its decisions concerning prisoners religious rights by choosing to not “blindly defer to prison policy based on the specific facts of the case” (Chaffee, Merriam, Seeman 2015).  

In both Supreme Court cases, the Alabama and Arkansas Departments of Corrections cited that they had a compelling state interest to restrict the length of prisoners’ hair and the length of prisoners’ facial hair, respectively. The cases differ, however, in how seriously the Supreme Court has regarded these compelling state interests. In Holt v. Hobbs, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that while he respects the state’s compelling interest to uphold prison security he asserts that “the argument that this interest would be seriously compromised by allowing an inmate to grow a half-inch beard is hard to take seriously” (Wolf 2015).  The Supreme Court, therefore, overruled the decision of the lower court and ruled in favor of Gregory Holt.  In Knight v. Thompson, however, the Supreme Court only vacated the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the lower court to be decided using the rulings of past Supreme Court cases (like Holt v. Hobbs) as a guide.  The Alabama Department of Corrections presents stronger evidence in favor of its compelling state interest to limit the length of Native American hair.  For example, there is concern that inmates might hide contraband in their hair.  In fact, there was an incident in which a razor blade cut the hands of a prison staff member while he was searching an inmate’s hair. Additionally, there is concern for the health of prisoners with long hair.  For instance, a black widow spider once wove a nest in an inmate’s hair.

       In my opinion, Knight v. Thompson is a more difficult case to decide than Holt v. Hobbs.  I agree with Justice Alito’s assessment that there exists little threat to prison security by allowing a man to grow a half-inch beard for religious reasons.  However, allowing an inmate to grow long hair obviously generates greater risk to prison security.  There are many who argue that prisoners should not be afforded religious rights in prison as they have forfeited many of their rights by committing and being found guilty of a crime.  However, Congress has specifically recognized a prisoner’s right to worship while incarcerated in The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) passed in 2000.  While it can be argued that restricting the length of a prisoner’s hair or facial hair will not inhibit a prisoner from worshipping, prisoners may contend otherwise.

            Ultimately, I believe that prisoners should have the right to freely exercise their religion as granted to them by the First Amendment.  However, if there presents a compelling state interest to restrict some religious rights for the sake of prison security, these cases should be decided on a case-by-case basis where the threat to prison security is seriously considered.  If the 11^th District Court finds that the Alabama Department of Corrections provides strong evidence of a compelling state interest to restrict the length of Native American inmates’ hair, than the court should rule in the Alabama Department of Correction’s favor in Knight v. Thompson.

Do you agree with my assessment of judging religious rights cases concerning prisoners on a case-by-case basis?  Or should there be some level of consistency in deciding these cases for the sake of religious neutrality?