David Ali v. Nathaniel Quarterman
822 F.3d 776
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- David Rasheed Ali, an observant Muslim and TDCJ inmate, sued seeking permission to grow a fist-length (≈4-inch) beard and wear a kufi throughout TDCJ facilities as required by his religion under RLUIPA.
- At filing TDCJ banned beards (except limited medical quarter-inch exception) and allowed kufis only inside housing or during religious services; violations could result in discipline.
- After initial dismissals and interlocutory rulings, a five-day bench trial was held; the district court granted a permanent injunction permitting Ali a beard up to four inches and kufi access throughout TDCJ.
- TDCJ appealed; while appeal was pending the Supreme Court decided Holt v. Hobbs (allowing a half-inch beard), and TDCJ adopted a new policy permitting a half-inch religious beard but did not materially change its kufi rule.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal application de novo under RLUIPA’s strict scrutiny-like framework and affirmed the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TDCJ’s grooming policy (ban on 4-inch beard) violate RLUIPA as applied to Ali? | Ali: beard requirement is sincerely held; ban substantially burdens exercise; less restrictive alternatives (searches, revocation) exist. | TDCJ: 4-inch beard risks contraband, impedes ID, and statewide costs; blanket ban is necessary and least restrictive. | Court: TDCJ failed least-restrictive-means showing; compelling interest in security acknowledged but alternatives (self-search, dual photos, revocation) feasible; injunction affirmed. |
| Does TDCJ’s headwear policy (prohibiting kufi outside cell/services) violate RLUIPA as applied to Ali? | Ali: kufi is religiously required; policy substantially burdens exercise; routine searches and revocation suffice. | TDCJ: kufis can hide contraband, impede identification (cover tattoos/gang marks), and create statewide costs/disruption. | Court: TDCJ did not show kufi ban is least restrictive; searches, removal on demand, and tracking privileges address concerns; injunction affirmed. |
| Relevance of underinclusiveness and comparisons to other inmates/prisons | Ali: policy underinclusive (permits long female hair, allows beards for medical reasons, other systems allow longer beards/kufis). | TDCJ: qualitative differences (female contraband types, staffing), other systems differ in resources. | Court: underinclusiveness considered but did not negate compelling interest; however it weighed against TDCJ’s least-restrictive showing. |
| Reliance on cost and administrative burden to justify blanket ban | Ali: TDCJ’s cost projections speculative; administrative burdens small or absorbable; TDCJ already bears similar costs under current half-inch policy. | TDCJ: statewide impact could be large; projected CO hours and salary justify ban as least restrictive. | Court: cost estimates speculative and unsubstantiated statewide; projected burdens are small relative to budget; not compelling as least-restrictive justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garner v. Kennedy, 713 F.3d 237 (5th Cir.) (examining beard/kufi RLUIPA claims and approving quarter-inch beard accommodation)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (Supreme Court held that prohibiting a half-inch beard violated RLUIPA; emphasized individualized, least-restrictive analysis)
- Chance v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 730 F.3d 404 (5th Cir.) (RLUIPA burden-shifting and case-specific inquiry principles)
- Moussazadeh v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 703 F.3d 781 (5th Cir.) (underinclusiveness and consideration of alternatives under RLUIPA)
- Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th Cir.) (addressing claims to grow long head hair and reliance on prior findings about security risks)
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (framework for scrutinizing marginal interests and least-restrictive-means in religious-exercise claims)