Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

his  religious  faith,  and  the  Department  does  not  dispute
the sincerity of petitioner’s belief.

In  addition  to  showing  that  the  relevant  exercise  of 
religion  is  grounded  in  a  sincerely  held  religious  belief,
petitioner  also  bore  the  burden  of  proving  that  the  De-
partment’s  grooming  policy  substantially  burdened  that 
exercise of religion.  Petitioner easily satisfied that obliga-
tion.  The Department’s grooming policy requires petition-
er to shave his beard and thus to “engage in conduct that
seriously  violates  [his]  religious  beliefs.”    Id.,  at  ___  (slip 
op., at 32).  If petitioner contravenes that policy and grows 
his beard, he will face serious disciplinary action.  Because 
the  grooming  policy  puts  petitioner  to  this  choice,  it  sub-
stantially  burdens  his  religious  exercise.    Indeed,  the 
Department does not argue otherwise.

The  District  Court  reached  the  opposite  conclusion,  but 
its  reasoning  (adopted  from  the  recommendation  of  the
Magistrate  Judge)  misunderstood  the  analysis  that 
RLUIPA  demands.  First,  the  District  Court  erred  by
concluding  that  the  grooming  policy  did  not  substantially 
burden petitioner’s religious exercise because “he had been
provided a prayer rug and a list of distributors of Islamic 
material,  he  was  allowed  to  correspond  with  a  religious
advisor,  and  was  allowed  to  maintain  the  required  diet
and observe religious holidays.”  App. 177.  In taking this
approach, the District Court improperly imported a strand
of reasoning from cases involving prisoners’ First Amend-
ment  rights.  See,  e.g.,  O’Lone  v.  Estate  of  Shabazz,  482 
U. S.  342,  351–352  (1987);  see  also  Turner  v.  Safley,  482 
U. S. 78, 90 (1987).  Under those cases, the availability of 
alternative  means  of  practicing  religion  is  a  relevant
consideration,  but  RLUIPA  provides  greater  protection. 
RLUIPA’s  “substantial  burden”  inquiry  asks  whether  the 
government  has  substantially  burdened  religious  exercise
(here,  the  growing  of  a  1⁄2-inch  beard),  not  whether  the 
RLUIPA  claimant  is  able  to  engage  in  other  forms  of