Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

HOLT v. HOBBS 

Opinion of the Court 

religious exercise. 

Second, the District Court committed a similar error in 
suggesting  that  the  burden  on  petitioner’s  religious  exer-
cise  was  slight  because,  according  to  petitioner’s  testi- 
mony,  his  religion  would  “credit”  him  for  attempting  to
follow  his  religious  beliefs,  even  if  that  attempt  proved
to be unsuccessful.  RLUIPA, however, applies to an exer-
cise  of  religion  regardless  of  whether  it  is  “compelled.”
§2000cc–5(7)(A).

Finally, the District Court went astray when it relied on 
petitioner’s  testimony  that  not  all  Muslims  believe  that 
men must grow beards.  Petitioner’s belief is by no means 
idiosyncratic.  See Brief for Islamic Law Scholars as Amici 
Curiae 2 (“hadith requiring beards . . . are widely followed 
by  observant  Muslims  across  the  various  schools  of  Is-
lam”).  But  even  if  it  were,  the  protection  of  RLUIPA,  no 
less  than  the  guarantee  of  the  Free  Exercise  Clause,  is 
“not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the mem-
bers of a religious sect.”  Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana 
Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 715–716 (1981). 

III 
Since  petitioner  met  his  burden  of  showing  that  the
Department’s  grooming  policy  substantially  burdened  his 
exercise of religion, the burden shifted to the Department
to  show  that  its  refusal  to  allow  petitioner  to  grow  a  1⁄2-
inch  beard  “(1)  [was]  in  furtherance  of  a  compelling  gov-
ernmental  interest;  and  (2)  [was]  the  least  restrictive 
means  of  furthering  that  compelling  governmental  inter-
est.”  §2000cc–1(a).

The  Department  argues  that  its  grooming  policy  repre-
sents the least restrictive means of furthering a “ ‘broadly
formulated  interes[t],’ ”  see  Hobby  Lobby,  supra,  at  ___ 
(slip  op.,  at  39)  (quoting  O  Centro,  546  U. S.,  at  431),
namely,  the  Department’s  compelling  interest  in  prison 
safety  and  security.  But  RLUIPA,  like  RFRA,  contem-