Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

HOLT v. HOBBS 

Opinion of the Court 

Although  we  do  not  question  the  importance  of  the  De-
partment’s  interests  in  stopping  the  flow  of  contraband 
and  facilitating  prisoner  identification,  we  do  doubt
whether the prohibition against petitioner’s beard furthers
its  compelling  interest  about  contraband.  And  we  con-
clude  that  the  Department  has  failed  to  show  that  its 
policy is the least restrictive means of furthering its com-
pelling  interests.  We  thus  reverse  the  decision  of  the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 

I 

A 

Congress  enacted  RLUIPA  and  its  sister  statute,  the
Religious  Freedom  Restoration  Act  of  1993  (RFRA),  107
Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb 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  deci-
sion  in  Employment  Div.,  Dept.  of  Human  Resources  of 
Ore.  v.  Smith,  494  U. S.  872  (1990),  which  held  that  neu-
tral,  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 consid-
ered  whether  a  challenged  government  action  that  sub-
stantially burdened the exercise of religion was necessary 
to further a compelling state interest.  See Yoder, supra, at 
214, 219; Sherbert, supra, at 403, 406. 

Following  our  decision  in  Smith,  Congress  enacted
RFRA  in  order  to  provide  greater  protection  for  religious
exercise  than  is  available  under  the  First  Amendment. 
See  Hobby  Lobby,  supra,  at  ___  –  ___  (slip  op.,  at  5–6). 
RFRA provides that “[g]overnment shall not substantially