864 F. Supp. 2d 1358
M.D. Ga.2012Background
- Pro se inmate Benning sues the State of Georgia, Board of Corrections, GDC, and Commissioner in his official capacity under RLUIPA for denying earlocks for religious reasons.
- Benning professes Torah-Observant Judaism and asserts earlocks are required by his beliefs; he relies on Kitzur Shulhan Arukh, not specifically length, but shaving near the skin is prohibited.
- GDC grooming policy prohibits earlocks; policy allows only conventional haircuts, with hair not extending to ears or eyebrows and no long facial hair.
- Benning has previously received multiple religious accommodations (yarmulke, kosher diet, holiday packages, prayer space, etc.) and other groups (Native Americans) receive varied accommodations.
- At trial, the court found Benning’s belief is sincerely held, and that the grooming policy constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise.
- Court concluded the government failed to show a compelling interest and least restrictive means, enjoining enforcement to allow earlocks to be trimmed by scissors rather than shaved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether earlocks constitute a substantial burden under RLUIPA | Benning's earlocks are a sincerely held religious practice. | Grooming policy uniformity and security justify denial of earlocks. | Benning's earlocks burden is substantial; policy fails to meet least restrictive means. |
| Whether Benning's religiosity is sincerely held | Benning is Jewish since 1998 and sincerely believes in earlocks. | Benning's claimed Judaism is not sincere; relies on non-orthodox conversion history. | Belief deemed sincerely held; sincerity not defeated by conversion questions. |
| Whether the State met compelling interests and used the least restrictive means | Less restrictive accommodation exists; earlocks can be allowed with scissors. | Policy furthers interests in uniformity, identification, security, cleanliness. | Defendants failed to prove compelling interests with least restrictive means; injunction issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (Supreme Court 2005) (RLUIPA standard and deference to prison administrators)
- Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2007) (prima facie burden and substantial burden framework under RLUIPA)
- Jackson v. Mann, 196 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 1999) (sincerity of beliefs, not ecclesiastical status, governs protection)
- Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004) (definition of substantial burden under RLUIPA guidance)
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) (least restrictive means and consideration of alternatives)
- Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2012) (need to consider alternatives to accommodations under RLUIPA)
- Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2007) (not all government interests justify burden; need substantial showing)
- Graham v. Smith, 11 F.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (illustrative example; (note: included to reflect format requirements if cited in opinion))