Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

HOLT v. HOBBS 

Opinion of the Court 

beard,  and  a  prisoner  seeking  to  hide  an  item  in  such  a
short beard would have to find a way to prevent the item
from  falling  out.  Since  the  Department  does not  demand 
that  inmates  have  shaved  heads  or  short  crew  cuts,  it  is 
hard to see why an inmate would seek to hide contraband 
in  a  1⁄2-inch  beard  rather  than  in  the  longer  hair  on  his 
head. 

Although the Magistrate Judge dismissed the possibility
that  contraband  could  be  hidden  in  a  short  beard,  the 
Magistrate  Judge,  the  District  Court,  and  the  Court  of 
Appeals  all  thought  that  they  were  bound  to  defer  to  the
Department’s  assertion  that  allowing  petitioner  to  grow 
such a beard would undermine its interest in suppressing 
contraband.    RLUIPA,  however,  does  not  permit  such
unquestioning  deference.  RLUIPA,  like  RFRA,  “makes 
clear  that  it  is  the  obligation  of  the  courts  to  consider
whether  exceptions  are  required  under  the  test  set  forth
by Congress.”  O Centro, supra, at 434.  That test requires 
the  Department  not  merely  to  explain  why  it  denied  the 
exemption but to prove that denying the exemption is the
least restrictive means of furthering a compelling govern-
mental  interest.  Prison  officials  are  experts  in  running 
prisons and evaluating the likely effects of altering prison 
rules,  and  courts  should  respect  that  expertise.    But  that 
respect  does  not  justify  the  abdication  of  the  responsibil-
ity,  conferred  by  Congress,  to  apply  RLUIPA’s  rigorous 
standard.  And  without  a  degree  of  deference  that  is  tan-
tamount  to  unquestioning  acceptance,  it  is  hard  to  swal-
low  the  argument  that  denying  petitioner  a  1⁄2-inch  beard 
actually furthers the Department’s interest in rooting out
contraband. 

Even  if  the  Department  could  make  that  showing,  its
contraband argument  would still  fail because the Depart-
ment cannot show that forbidding very short beards is the 
least  restrictive  means  of  preventing  the  concealment  of 
contraband.    “The  least-restrictive-means  standard  is