Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

Holt (July 19, 2011)).

Petitioner  filed  a  pro se  complaint  in  Federal  District
Court  challenging  the  grooming  policy  under  RLUIPA.
We  refer  to  the  respondent  prison  officials  collectively  as 
the  Department.    In  October  2011,  the  District  Court 
granted petitioner a preliminary injunction and remanded
to a Magistrate Judge for an evidentiary hearing.  At the 
hearing,  the  Department  called  two  witnesses.    Both 
expressed the belief that inmates could hide contraband in 
even a  1⁄2-inch beard, but neither pointed to any instances 
in  which  this  had  been  done  in  Arkansas  or  elsewhere. 
Both witnesses also acknowledged that inmates could hide 
items  in  many  other  places,  such  as  in  the  hair  on  their 
heads or their clothing.  In addition, one of the witnesses— 
Gaylon  Lay, 
the  warden  of  petitioner’s  prison—
testified  that  a  prisoner  who  escaped  could  change  his 
appearance  by  shaving  his  beard,  and  that  a  prisoner 
could  shave  his  beard  to  disguise  himself  and  enter  a
restricted  area  of  the  prison.    Neither  witness,  however, 
was  able  to  explain  why  these  problems  could  not  be  ad-
dressed  by  taking  a  photograph  of  an  inmate  without  a 
beard,  a  practice  followed  in  other  prison  systems.    Lay 
voiced  concern  that  the  Department  would  be  unable  to 
monitor  the  length  of  a  prisoner’s  beard  to  ensure  that  it 
did not exceed one-half inch, but he acknowledged that the 
Department kept track of the length of the beards of those
inmates who are allowed to wear a 1⁄4-inch beard for medi-
cal reasons. 

As a result of the preliminary injunction, petitioner had
a  short  beard  at  the  time  of  the  hearing,  and  the  Magis-
trate Judge commented: “I look at your particular circum-
stance  and  I  say,  you  know,  it’s  almost  preposterous  to
think that you could hide contraband in your beard.”  App.
155.  Nevertheless,  the  Magistrate  Judge  recommended 
that  the  preliminary  injunction  be  vacated  and  that  peti-
tioner’s complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim