Holt v. Hobbs (2015) involved RLUPIA and held that the Arkansas ban on Muslim prisoners growing beards violated religious rights unless what?

Holt v. Hobbs (2015) involved RLUPIA and held that the Arkansas ban on Muslim prisoners growing beards violated religious rights unless what?

• A. There is a compelling state interest
• B. The prisoner agrees to curb beard length
• C. The ban is permitted if other prisoners complain
• D. The facility is overcrowded

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that RLUPIA requires a strict-scrutiny level of review for rules that substantially burden a prisoner’s religious practice. A policy in this context can only be sustained if there is a compelling governmental interest behind it and the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest (the least restrictive means). In Holt v. Hobbs, the Arkansas ban on beards for prisoners imposed a substantial burden on a Muslim inmate’s religious exercise. The Court held that such a burden could not be justified under RLUPIA because the state did not show a compelling interest that was narrowly tailored to justify the blanket beard ban. So the restriction violated religious rights unless there is a compelling state interest.

The key idea is that RLUPIA requires a strict-scrutiny level of review for rules that substantially burden a prisoner’s religious practice. A policy in this context can only be sustained if there is a compelling governmental interest behind it and the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest (the least restrictive means). In Holt v. Hobbs, the Arkansas ban on beards for prisoners imposed a substantial burden on a Muslim inmate’s religious exercise. The Court held that such a burden could not be justified under RLUPIA because the state did not show a compelling interest that was narrowly tailored to justify the blanket beard ban. So the restriction violated religious rights unless there is a compelling state interest.