Couch v. Jabe, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9602

Couch, a Sunni Muslim inmate at Augusta Correctional Center, seeks to grow an eight-th inch beard to comply with his faith.
Virginia's grooming policy prohibits beards unless a medical 'No Shave Pass' allows up to a one-fourth-inch beard.
Policy provides that beards may be restricted if they conceal contraband, impede identification, pose health risks, or affect sanitation; non-exempt inmates may be shaved and placed in the GPP.
Couch requested a one-eighth-inch beard in December 2009; requests denied at all administrative levels.
District court granted summary judgment for prison officials; Couch appealed on RLUIPA grounds only.
Court vacates summary judgment, finds genuine dispute as to whether the policy is the least restrictive means, and remands for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Couch suffer a substantial burden on religious exercise?	Couch's beard is a religious obligation; policy burdened it.	Policy uniformly applies grooming rules to promote safety and identification; burden unnecessary as a standard measure.	Yes; Couch showed substantial burden on religious exercise.
Is the grooming policy in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest?	N/A (not required to frame against policy defense) — policy lacks demonstrated interests for this burden.	Policy serves health, safety, identification and security interests supported by affidavits tying restrictions to concerns.	Yes; policy is in furtherance of compelling interests.
Is the policy the least restrictive means of furthering those interests?	A religious exemption for an eight-inch beard would be less restrictive; alternative should be considered.	Policy is the least restrictive means; exemptions would undermine interests.	No; officials failed to show the policy is least restrictive and ignored the proposed alternative.
Should the district court's grant of summary judgment be affirmed on remand?	N/A (appeal focused on RLUIPA) – remand to allow consideration of less restrictive means.	N/A	Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) (defined substantial burden and noted balancing with institutional interests)
Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2009) (affidavit deficiencies in least-restrictive-means analysis)
Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirmative requirement to consider less restrictive alternatives under strict scrutiny)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (court deference to prison security concerns while protecting religious exercise)
Jova v. Smith, 582 F.3d 410 (2d Cir. 2009) (affidavit-based justification linking restrictions to security interests)
Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2007) (mere assertion of security/health concerns insufficient without specific explanation)
DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam; consideration of less restrictive alternatives in grooming policy)