beard as a religious exemption under our group and we think the court got that ruling right and you'll hear from my friends on the other side why they think it was wrong but the one thing we can both agree on is that the unlimited beard issue has been the focus of litigation from the start it's what mr smith requested in his complaint and has demanded throughout including this appeal with the district court went wrong was going beyond that request and granting a compromise from that even three inch beard kind of in play i well no i don't think that's entirely accurate we were surprised at the district court compromise order and i and i think that's true both sides because the other side saying that they don't want to either  and throughout i mean mr smith was axed directly what do you want unlimited beard indefinitely or the well i guess you know then then the question is all of the findings that the district court made for reasons to reject the half inch beard policy seem to translate right over sort of straight line to beer so you know when he says there's no like sort of weigh station at three inches i couldn't tell that there was any evidence anyway presented about three inches he made sort of his own judgment that you know it was plausible d in his words that know you could you know search you know inmates can consult search beer generally and you know beards are any different than clothing mouths or hair he never really said none of these findings sort of was specific to the three into just three inches notwithstanding some questioning about hair length or best you know sort of a bistable as an evident matter seems to have sort of come out of the blue i'd agree with that your honor i mean that was certainly the focus of the district court ruling and you know so our contention here is that if that was going to be the focus of this litigation a it was mr smith's obligation to ask for that accommodation and be we should be of afforded the opportunity to respond to that because obviously it's a lot harder burden for the government there is there is a big difference between and completely was asking for an untrimmed beard and everybody had an opportunity to put on their evidence and they did and the district court then made findings about that went to beards beards beards beards beards why isn't the logical implication of the district court's conclusion that or you know sort of a different opinion that he was you know right to conclude that the half inch bear policy won't pass muster but then was wrong to stop it three inches all of the binding seem to is where our loop analysis is different from the sort of minor on the education because it goes to the prisoner's individual religious belief and his that seriously held religious belief and we have to do i mean rip our lupus stacked against the government by design but for that framework to work we have to rely on plaintiffs to tell us what accommodation they're seeking and in the litigation i've a fist length beard came up a few times specifically granite there's not a lot there but the district court did say that untrimmed beard better disguise faces posing identification risks that they better hide contraband they're more  i mean i'm reading from i mean i know what you're talking about you're talking about how he's justifying the three inch piece but he says g d s c has not shown that his concerns about contraband  beards cannot be addressed by simply searching beards especially where along her head hair is allowed and kept the adequately served straight it if you're honest disagree with me on this point and then i think the appropriate remedy is a remain and for a particular discussion of the claims issue because you know the reason we're having a lot of this confusion is that it's not clear what the district court's order was directed that we think it's a fair reading of the district court order to say that the unlimited request which was the only request at issue was denied but you know we're going to go on to part b which is  or the way i operate judge sans order it's he found a failure of proof as to that justification as well because you say you know that already happens in georgia department corrections did come forward any evidence that created a problem so again failure of proof that may be true on that point on a boat but one that i would like to highlight because a lot of these points are matters of degree between three and a half inch three inches unlimited what have you there's very little doubt that having an unlimited beard dramatically alters the appearance of the inmate and obscures facial features in a way that not alot of other  hair or anything else can so there was specific testimony in this case about inmates utilizing very long beards to dramatically change their appearance both before and after escapes to facilitate escapes there was the department has specific experience with inmates who have harmed staff hiding handcuffed he's even in their s you know causen identification problems but that you know you have the ability to inquire about you know instances of that happening in the  other department of corrections and you didn't inquire as not to inquire about this is a sates that allow periods that's what i would push back on i know my time's expired if i could just briefly answer this question like i mean it's  r obligation under holt hope said that when you've got a bunch of states that do it differently you've got to offer persuasive reasons for why you're taking a different route but what they didn't say and what this court clarified and night was that doesn't have to take the form of specifically regarding here's why we don't do this what x state does what y state does with the state of those policies might work for other states but it was george's burden to show why they wouldn't work for georgia and i think the district court held that we carry that burden the same way that alabama did in ny on a very similar record and i'll reserve the rest of my time no i think you are right now you thank you it may please the court judge me assuming judge martin your exactly right that all the district court findings about the speculative nature of georgia department of corrections evidence points to grant as demanded by his islamic faith and this report presley found that georgia department of corrections provided not speculative reasons why it could not accommodate at least three and fears whatever the district court erred by limiting rel three inch beard because the record provided no evidence to show that any concerns raised by intrinsic beard's were not similarly speculative when congress unanimously passed our loofa it intended to replace a legal regime intuition or speculation or lose of puts the burden on prison ministries or to prove with evidence that igniting a particular religious accommodation is the least restrictive means of furthering some generally compelling interest weapons so why do you believe that she has not carry this burden as to mr smith's particular your honor jerk is a part of corrections never provided any individualized consideration smith the right to grow disappeared because they had a blanket policy that did not allow for any religious accommodations at all the georgia department of corrections must do an individualized analysis under the strict scrutiny standard demanded by our loop but the mere fact that an inmate has been disciplined in the past is not enough to meet this requirement and a new point to george is a part of corrections provide evidence that this was ever called contraband on his person  whether he would use the companies to violate their security concerns and they never provided evidence from that so your honor the central issue in this case is was rather torture pro evidence persuasive reasons why georgia prisons are somehow different in title two of course arbitrary limitations they didn't miss cross appeals but it's on the reality that the district court's findings do not generally support or permit an arbitrary limitation of the remedy to three inches here one rejecting the georgia department of corrections limitation the district court consider their justification for the evidence carefully health that it was all based on speculation and total ignorance of how other prison systems operate but when turning to the issue of whether to mr smith could throw it on transparent the district court and justifiably abandon the prager demand to fire lisa and said that restriction is the least restrictive available means of accommodating some compelling interest and again the record demonstrates that thirty eight other states and the federal for prisons manage to accommodate untr mentioned at the end of his argument your honor the main difference between night two in this case is that the district court in that case st occurred to credit the prison administrators evidence while in our case they chose to credit the evidence of mr card in the night to the fisher court specifically found i'm sorry also tonight was tried before holt and the court of appeals did not require them  so your honor is returning to my argument started a part of corrections complains that the district court ordered them to change the policy rather than just confining its injunctions to mr smith himsel ga part of corrections made their own bed on this fire refusing to ever consider prisoners and religious needs on an individual basis their policy was that they don't permit beards longer than half an inch and they won't consider any religious exemptions thus the to policy mr smith was forced to challenge and the district court found that the georgia department fractions completely failed to justify it there are plenty of policy is unlawful under our laws so an injunction against any blink policy precisely fits the violation mr smith writes that was proved furthermore georgia department of corrections has argued for an overly restrictive interpretation of the p l r a that has been rejected both the supreme court and the circuit courts the people there are agents not present relief that benefits more than just the plaintiffs the supreme court clearly rejected that notion in brown versus prada georgia part of corrections extreme part a different outcome in pronounce because the supreme court explicitly held that it was appropriate for the injunction there to apply to parties not before the courts similarly in crawford versus for  the st circuit upheld an injunction for barring the massachusetts department of corrections to provide the plaintiffs with broadcast to juma services by closed circuit television in any special management unit in which their house in the future not  with respect to a particular plaintiff your honor st of all smith was challenging the constitutionality of the blanket policy as applied to everyone not just to him and when he asked for relief he  remind me what the supreme court say about the plain language of the statute your honor the court think knowledge that the scope of the remedy must be proportional to the scope of the violation and the warder must expense no further than necessary to remedy the violation but hel that judge moore and i were asking about sort of the logical implications of part of the district court's opinion the way i read part of a it seems to say ill year of proof on the half inch your policy everybody knows that the only thing the only sort of relief that smith a saw is an untrimmed beard and it seems to me just candidly and reading part that the logical implication of the findings in part a are that the relief to mr smith namely the untrimmed beard should be granted not negate the whole persuasive reasons for army is simply found in that case that the detailed records there was sufficient to prove that alabama's policy was the least restrictive means i'm like in this case in one area is no clear i mean that other expertise and experience which means that parts must be aware that they're conducting their early an analysis in the context of the present and there are particular safety and security concerns in this context however in this respect does not negate a cour the district court rule and it sounds like there's some sense at least for some members of the court that the court might have alternately ruled that the untrimmed beards were an acceptable remedy we would disagree but to the extent there is any confusion on that point we don't think that this short this court should decide in the st instance what it was that the district court actually meant the best remedy in that situation is to remain and to the district court with instructions to perform its analysis with respect to the one accommodation that mr smith requested and that is the  when the georgia department of corrections have to change its policy to allow that for other emirates as well it would certainly have an obligation to reexamine its policy and that ruling could play a role in future cases but because they are loop of determination is individualized that would not necessarily mean that it takes the same result with the reason why i ask is because a i think it was in your brief you say that after all the hobbs change policy state of iraq and i would have an obligation to look at that again but the little bit of time i have left i would like to really reiterate to the court that in the end this is in the individualized analysis and judge francis touched on this a bit this comes down to whether smith individually was entitled to an unlimited beard and we think that the district court found that he wasn't but regardless if you look at mr