Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 12

Cite as:  574 U. S. ____ (2015) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

plates  a  “ ‘more  focused’ ”  inquiry  and  “ ‘requires  the  Gov-
ernment  to  demonstrate  that  the  compelling  interest  test 
is  satisfied  through  application  of  the  challenged  law  “to
the  person”––the  particular  claimant  whose  sincere  exer-
cise  of  religion  is  being  substantially  burdened.’ ”    Hobby 
Lobby, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 39) (quoting O Centro, 
supra,  at  430–431  (quoting  §2000bb–1(b))).  RLUIPA 
requires us to “ ‘scrutiniz[e] the asserted harm of granting
specific exemptions to particular religious claimants’ ” and 
“to  look  to  the  marginal  interest  in  enforcing”  the  chal-
lenged  government  action  in  that  particular  context. 
Hobby  Lobby,  supra,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  39)  (quoting  O 
Centro, supra, at 431; alteration in original).  In this case, 
that means the enforcement of the Department’s policy to
prevent petitioner from growing a 1⁄2-inch beard. 

The  Department  contends  that  enforcing  this  prohibi-
tion  is  the  least  restrictive  means  of  furthering  prison
safety and security in two specific ways. 

A 
The  Department  first  claims  that  the  no-beard  policy 
prevents  prisoners  from  hiding  contraband.  The  Depart-
ment  worries  that  prisoners  may  use  their  beards  to  con-
ceal  all  manner  of  prohibited  items,  including  razors,
needles,  drugs,  and  cellular  phone  subscriber  identity
module (SIM) cards.

We readily agree that the Department has a compelling
interest  in  staunching  the  flow  of  contraband  into  and
within  its  facilities,  but  the  argument  that  this  interest 
would be seriously compromised by allowing an inmate to 
grow  a  1⁄2-inch  beard  is  hard  to  take  seriously.    As  noted, 
the Magistrate Judge observed that it was “almost prepos-
terous to think that [petitioner] could hide contraband” in
the  short  beard  he  had  grown  at  the  time  of  the  eviden-
tiary  hearing.    App.  155.    An  item  of  contraband  would 
have  to  be  very  small  indeed  to  be  concealed  by  a  1⁄2-inch