Willie Garner v. Paul Morales
713 F.3d 237
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Garner, a Muslim prisoner, challenges TDCJ's grooming policy banning beards, except for medical exemptions, and prohibition on Kufi head coverings.
- District court awarded declaratory and injunctive relief to Garner for the quarter-inch beard ban but allowed restriction on Kufi.
- TDCJ does not issue clipper-shave passes for religious reasons; exemptions exist only for medical conditions.
- Garner was represented by counsel at trial; evidence included cost, identification, and security considerations related to beards.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's RLUIPA ruling, holding the beard ban burdens religious exercise and is not least restrictive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the no-beard policy impose a substantial burden? | Garner contends policy substantially burdens religious exercise. | TDCJ contends policy does not create a substantial burden; costs and security justify it. | Yes; policy imposes a substantial burden. |
| Is the no-beard policy the least restrictive means to a compelling interest? | Garner asserts alternatives could satisfy interests with less restriction. | TDCJ argues policy is least restrictive and supports security and cost control. | No; policy not least restrictive. |
| Are costs a compelling interest supported by evidence? | Garner presented evidence of insufficient cost justification; no concrete studies. | TDCJ asserts substantial cost concerns justify the policy. | Costs evidence insufficient to establish least-restrictive means. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145 (5th Cir. 2011) (least restrictive means review under RLUIPA; deference to prison officials)
- Gooden v. Crain, 353 F. App’x 885 (5th Cir. 2009) (RLUIPA facially allows deference to security concerns; not controlling here)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (Supreme Court 2005) (context matters; due deference to prison administrators)
- Mayfield v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008) (RLUIPA framework and seeking least restrictive means)
- Hoevenaar v. Lazaroff, 422 F.3d 366 (6th Cir. 2005) (whether policy is least restrictive means is a matter for law review)