Ricky Knight v. Leslie Thompson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15247
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Male Native American inmates in ADOC custody seek a religious exemption from the ADOC’s categorical male short-hair policy (hair "off neck and ears"); no plaintiff is maximum-security.
- Plaintiffs claim the policy substantially burdens their religious exercise; the United States intervened on plaintiffs’ behalf.
- On remand after prior appeals, a full evidentiary hearing/bench trial was held; plaintiffs presented uncontested testimony about religious significance of long hair and evidence that many other jurisdictions permit long hair or religious exemptions.
- ADOC witnesses (including former corrections director Ronald Angelone) testified long hair facilitates concealing contraband/weapons, impedes identification (including post-escape), increases search time and risk of injury, conceals infections/infestations, and undermines discipline; ADOC prisons are overcrowded and understaffed.
- The magistrate judge and district court found the policy substantially burdens religion but concluded ADOC met its RLUIPA burden showing the policy furthers compelling interests and is the least restrictive means; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADOC’s blanket male short-hair policy violates RLUIPA by imposing a substantial burden without being the least restrictive means to further compelling interests | Policy substantially burdens religious exercise; less restrictive alternatives (religious exemption, self-searches, Photoshop/photo manipulation) are available and other jurisdictions adopt permissive policies | ADOC’s policy furthers compelling interests (security, identification, discipline, hygiene, safety) and alternatives do not adequately mitigate risks given overcrowding/understaffing | ADOC satisfied RLUIPA: policy furthers compelling interests and is the least restrictive means; judgment for ADOC affirmed |
| Whether ADOC had to show it considered less restrictive alternatives before adopting the policy | ADOC must have considered and rejected less restrictive measures to meet RLUIPA | RLUIPA requires that no efficacious less-restrictive alternative exist; actual prior consideration is not required in this circuit | Court: Eleventh Circuit does not require proof administrators considered alternatives; inquiry is whether effective less-restrictive measures actually exist (none shown) |
| Relevance of other jurisdictions’ permissive grooming policies | Widespread permissive practices show feasible less-restrictive alternatives and undermine ADOC’s claim | Practices elsewhere are relevant but not controlling; other jurisdictions may willingly absorb risks ADOC declines | Court: Practices of others are evidence but not dispositive; ADOC may decline to assume risks and carried its burden |
| Equal protection / other constitutional claims | Policy discriminates by race, religion, sex (different standard for females) | Policy applies to all males; differential treatment of sexes is justified by security differences | Most claims abandoned; equal protection claim rejected—record supports different treatment of men and women and policy not arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir. 1996) (upholding categorical short-hair prison grooming rule under RFRA/related analysis)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (RLUIPA requires deference to prison administrators but not carte blanche; context matters)
- Rich v. Secretary, Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 716 F.3d 525 (11th Cir. 2013) (policies based on speculation or post-hoc rationalizations fail; other institutions’ practices are relevant but not controlling)
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussed as contrasting authority requiring administrators to consider alternatives)
- Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008) (upholding sex-differentiated grooming rules where record supports different risks)