Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

HOLT, AKA MUHAMMAD v. HOBBS, DIRECTOR, 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–6827.  Argued October 7, 2014—Decided January 20, 2015 

Section  3  of  the  Religious  Land  Use  and  Institutionalized  Persons  Act 
of 2000 (RLUIPA) provides that “[n]o government shall impose a sub­
stantial burden on the religious exercise” of an institutionalized per­
son unless the government demonstrates that the burden “is the least
restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.”
42 U. S. C. §2000cc–1(a). 

Petitioner  is  an  Arkansas  inmate  and  devout  Muslim  who  wishes 

to grow a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.   Re­
spondent Arkansas Department of Correction (Department) prohibits 
its prisoners from growing beards, with the single exception that in­
mates with diagnosed skin conditions may grow ¼-inch beards.  Peti­
tioner sought an exemption on religious grounds and, although he be­
lieves  that  his  faith  requires  him  not  to  trim  his  beard  at  all,  he
proposed a compromise under which he would be allowed to maintain
a  ½-inch  beard.    Prison  officials  denied  his  request,  and  petitioner
sued  in  Federal  District  Court.   At  an  evidentiary  hearing  before  a
Magistrate  Judge,  Department  witnesses  testified  that  beards  com­
promised prison safety because they could be used to hide contraband
and because an inmate could quickly shave his beard to disguise his
identity.  The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing petitioner’s 
complaint, emphasizing that prison officials are entitled to deference 
on security matters and that the prison permitted petitioner to exer­
cise  his  religion  in  other  ways.    The  District  Court  adopted  the  rec­
ommendation  in  full,  and  the  Eighth  Circuit  affirmed,  holding  that
the Department had satisfied its  burden of showing that the groom­
ing policy was the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling
security  interests,  and  reiterating  that  courts  should  defer  to  prison