Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

partment could show that denying petitioner a ½-inch beard furthers
its interest in rooting out contraband, it would still have to show that
its  policy  is  the  least  restrictive  means  of  furthering  that  interest,  a 
standard that is “exceptionally demanding” and requires the govern­
ment to “sho[w] that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal 
without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by
the  objecting  part[y].”    Hobby  Lobby,  supra,  at  ___.  Here,  the  De­
partment fails to establish that its security concerns cannot be satis­
fied by simply searching a ½-inch beard.  Pp. 9–11.

(ii) Even if the Department’s grooming policy furthers its compel­
ling interest in prisoner identification, its policy still violates RLUIPA
as  applied  in  the  present  circumstances.  As  petitioner  argues,  re­
quiring  inmates  to  be  photographed  both  with  and  without  beards
and then periodically thereafter is a less restrictive means of solving 
the  Department’s  identification  concerns.    The  Department  fails  to
show why its prison system is so different from the many institutions
that allow facial hair that the dual-photo method cannot be employed
at its institutions.  It also fails to show why the security risk present­
ed by a prisoner shaving a ½-inch beard is so different from the risk
of  a  prisoner  shaving  a  mustache,  head  hair,  or  ¼-inch  beard. 
Pp. 11–13. 

(c) In addition to the Department’s failure to prove that petitioner’s 

proposed  alternatives  would  not  sufficiently  serve  its  security  inter­
ests, the Department also fails to adequately explain the substantial
underinclusiveness  of  its  policy,  since  it  permits  ¼-inch  beards  for 
prisoners  with  medical  conditions  and  more  than  ½  inch  of  hair  on
the head.  Its failure to pursue its proffered objectives with regard to
such  “analogous  nonreligious  conduct”  suggests  that  its  interests 
“could be achieved by narrower ordinances that burdened religion to 
a far lesser degree.”  Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 
508 U. S. 520, 546.   Nor does the Department explain why the vast 
majority  of  States  and  the  Federal  Government  can  permit  inmates
to grow ½-inch beards, either for any reason or for religious reasons,
but it cannot.  Such evidence requires a prison, at a minimum, to of­
fer persuasive reasons why it believes it must take a different course.
See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 414, n. 14.  Pp. 13–16. 

509 Fed. Appx. 561, reversed and remanded. 

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.  GINSBURG, J., 
filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.  SOTOMAYOR, 
J., filed a concurring opinion.