Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

HOLT v. HOBBS 

officials on matters of security. 

Syllabus 

Held: The Department’s grooming policy violates RLUIPA insofar as it
prevents  petitioner  from  growing a  ½-inch  beard  in  accordance  with
his religious beliefs.  Pp. 6–16. 

(a) Under  RLUIPA,  the  challenging  party  bears  the  initial  burden 
of  proving  that  his  religious  exercise  is  grounded  in  a  sincerely  held 
religious  belief,  see  Burwell  v.  Hobby  Lobby  Stores,  Inc.,  573  U. S. 
___,  ___,  n.  28,  and  that  the  government’s  action  substantially  bur­
dens his religious exercise.  Here, petitioner’s sincerity is not in dis­
pute, and he easily satisfies the second obligation.  The Department’s 
policy forces him to choose between “engag[ing] in conduct that seri­
ously violates [his] religious belie[f],” id., at ___, or contravening the
grooming policy and risking disciplinary action.  In reaching the op­
posite conclusion, the District Court misunderstood the analysis that
RLUIPA demands.  First, the District Court erred by concluding that
the  grooming  policy  did  not  substantially  burden  petitioner’s  reli­
gious  exercise  because  he  could  practice  his  religion  in  other  ways. 
Second, the District Court erroneously suggested that the burden on 
petitioner’s  religious  exercise  was  slight  because  petitioner  testified
that his religion would “credit” him for attempting to follow his reli­
gious  beliefs,  even  if  that  attempt  proved  unsuccessful.    RLUIPA, 
however,  applies  to  religious  exercise  regardless  of  whether  it  is 
“compelled.”  §2000cc–5(7)(A).  Finally, the District Court improperly
relied on petitioner’s testimony that not all Muslims believe that men
must  grow  beards.    Even  if  petitioner’s  belief  were  idiosyncratic, 
RLUIPA’s guarantees are “not limited to beliefs which are shared by
all of the members of a religious sect.”  Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indi­
ana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 715–716.  Pp. 6–8.

(b) Once  the  challenging  party  satisfies  his  burden,  the  burden
shifts to the government to show that substantially burdening the re­
ligious  exercise  of  the  “particular  claimant”  is  “the  least  restrictive 
means  of  furthering  [a]  compelling  governmental  interest.”    Hobby 
Lobby,  supra,  at  ___;  §2000cc–1(a).  The  Department  fails  to  show 
that  enforcing  its  beard  prohibition  against  petitioner  furthers  its
compelling interests in preventing prisoners from hiding contraband
and disguising their identities.  Pp. 8–13.

(i) While the Department has a compelling interest in regulating 

contraband, its argument that this interest is compromised by allow­
ing an inmate to grow a ½-inch beard is unavailing, especially given 
the difficulty of hiding contraband in such a short beard and the lack
of  a  corresponding  policy  regulating  the  length  of  hair  on  the  head. 
RLUIPA does not permit the unquestioning deference required to ac­
cept the Department’s assessment.  See Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita 
Beneficente  União  do  Vegetal,  546  U. S.  418,  434.    Even  if  the  De­