Christopher Ware v. Louisiana Department of Corr
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13750
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Christopher Ware, a Louisiana DOC inmate and Rastafari adherent, refuses to cut or style his hair; his unstyled dreadlocks (about 16, shoulder-length, ~1/4" each) are maintained without braiding.
- DOC grooming policies forbid dreadlocks and provide no religious exemption; parish jails (housing ~half of DOC’s legal-custody population) do not apply those grooming rules.
- Ware was held in a parish facility pending transfer to a DOC prison and sued under RLUIPA seeking a declaration and injunction against enforcement of the grooming rules as applied to him.
- At bench trial the district court found DOC’s grooming rules served compelling interests (contraband control, identification, hygiene, safety) and were the least restrictive means; it denied relief.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether DOC met its RLUIPA burden and reversed, ruling DOC failed to show the rules were the least restrictive means and failed to justify underinclusiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC’s grooming policy, as applied, imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise | Ware: policy substantially burdens his sincere Rastafari practice of not cutting/styling hair | DOC: policy is neutral, generally applicable, and necessary for prison interests | Parties conceded substantial burden; court proceeded to government burden analysis |
| Whether DOC’s asserted interests are compelling given underinclusiveness | Ware: policy underinclusive because parish inmates in DOC custody are exempt, undermining claimed interests | DOC: parish exemption due to LSA request, administrative difficulty, and lower-risk parish population | Court: exemption unexplained; DOC failed to rebut inference that interests are not truly compelling |
| Whether DOC proved the grooming rules are the least restrictive means | Ware: majority of jurisdictions allow dreadlocks or religious accommodations, so DOC must justify deviation | DOC: budget/staffing constraints and regional practices justify stricter rule | Court: DOC offered no persuasive, non-speculative reasons; majority practice undermines DOC’s claim; not least restrictive |
| Remedy: whether injunction/declaration should issue | Ware: seeks declaratory relief and injunction prohibiting enforcement against him | DOC: defended denial below | Held: Reversed district court; judgment rendered for Ware enjoining enforcement as applied to him |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA’s least-restrictive-means requirement is demanding; underinclusiveness and other prisons’ practices inform analysis)
- Ali v. Stephens, 822 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 2016) (framework for RLUIPA review; mixed question of fact and law; test government’s showing de novo)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (Congress enacted RLUIPA to protect religious exercise of institutionalized persons)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (underinclusiveness can show law does not advance a compelling interest)
- Davis v. Davis, 826 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2016) (prison policies grounded on speculation or post-hoc rationalizations are insufficient under RLUIPA)