Case Information
*2 Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER [*] , District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Plаintiffs, male inmates of the Alabama Department of Corrections
(“ADOC”), brought this suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq., to challenge the
ADOC’s “short-hair policy.” The short-hair policy forbids Plaintiffs from wearing
their hair unshorn in accordance with the dictates of their Native American
religion. In our previous opinion, we affirmed the district cоurt’s entry of
judgment in favor of the ADOC. See Knight v. Thompson,
We asked thе parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the issue on remand. The parties have done so. Having considered both the briefs and Holt, we conclude that Holt does not dictate a change in the outcome of this case. We reinstate our prior Knight I opinion with revisions only to Part III.B.ii, which we set forth below, and we add, with this opinion in Knight II, a discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Holt and why it does not affect the outcome in our prior decision.
In Holt, the Supreme Court considered a RLUIPA challenge to the Arkansas
Departmеnt of Correction’s (“the Department”) “no-beard policy.” The no-beard
policy prohibited inmates from wearing facial hair other than a neatly trimmed
mustache. Holt,
Plaintiff Gregory Holt, an Arkansas inmate and devout Muslim, sought
permission to grow a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious belief. Id. at
___,
an evidentiary hearing, the district court dismissed Holt’s RLUIPA complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Id. On certiorari review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Department’s grooming policy violated RLUIPA insofar as it prevented Holt from growing a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliеfs. Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 867.
Plaintiffs here raise three arguments worth addressing for why Holt changes
the outcome in their case. First, Plaintiffs argue that, like the lower courts in Holt,
the district court in this case failed to engage in a “focused inquiry.” We disagree.
In Holt, in relevant part, the Department argued that its grooming policy
represented the least restrictive means of furthering a brоadly formulated interest in
prison safety and security. Id. at ___,
While Holt sought to grow a ½-inch beard, such that the Department had to
show how denying him a ½-inch beard aсtually furthered its compelling interests,
the Plaintiffs here request a complete exemption of long, unshorn hair from the
ADOC’s short-hair policy. See Knight I,
Second, the Plaintiffs claim that the district court applied “unquestioning
deference” to prison officials’ testimony. In Holt, the Supreme Court admonished
the lower courts for engaging in “unquestioning deference” to the Department’s
assertion that allowing Holt to grow a ½-inch beard would undermine its
compelling interest instead of requiring the Department “to prove that denying the
exemption is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental
interest.” Holt,
Here, in contrast, the district court made various factual findings concerning
inmates’ hair length based on the ADOC’s witnesses’ “elucidating expert opinions,
lay testimony, and anecdotal evidence based on their decades of combined
experience as corrections officers.” Knight I,
Third, the Plaintiffs contend that, in light of Holt, the district court erred in
disregаrding the evidence presented below that the prison systems of 39 other
states “would allow the religious accommodation Plaintiffs request.” Holt
presented evidence that “thе vast majority of States and the Federal Government
permit inmates to grow ½-inch beards, either for any reason or for religious
reasons.” Holt,
As an initial mаtter, on this record, it is not apparent that the Plaintiffs presented evidence that all of these 39 other prison systems would allow their specific requested accommоdation—long, unshorn hair. Compare id. (“[T]he Department failed to show . . . why the vast majority of States and the Federal Government permit inmates to grow ½-inch beards . . . but it cannot.”). For instance, while several of the written policies of other prison systems proffered by Plaintiffs indicate that inmates generally have freedom in choosing their hair length, the policiеs make clear that the chosen hair length cannot pose risks for health, safety, hygiene, order, or security. Thus, it is not clear that these policies would allow for entirely unshоrn hair.
In any event, unlike in Holt, the district court here did not defer to the
ADOC’s “mere say-so” that it could not accommodate Plaintiffs’ requested
accommodation even though other prison systems offer such an accommodation.
See id. As already discussed, the “detailed record developed” below distinguishes
this case from Holt, where the lower cоurts gave “unquestioning deference” to
prison officials’ conclusory and speculative assertions. As we stated in our
previous opinion, the ADOC has “shown that Plaintiffs’ requested exеmption
poses actual security, discipline, hygiene, and safety risks” and neither we nor
Plaintiffs can “point to a less restrictive alternative that accomplishes the ADOC’s
cоmpelling goals.” Knight I,
Therefore, we reinstate our Knight I opinion with revisions only in Part III.B.ii on pages 1284 to 1286. We file that reinstated opinion with those revisions, contemporaneously with this oрinion.
We affirm, once again, the district court’s judgment in favor of the ADOC after our reconsideration in light of Holt, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s mandate.
OPINION REINSTATED WITH MODIFICATIONS; AFFIRMED.
Notes
[*] Honorable Harvey E. Schlesingеr, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
[1] The lengthy procedural history and factual background of Plaintiffs’ case are provided in our previous opinion.