Supreme Court rules for Muslim inmate over prison beard policy

Reuters ^ | 01/20/2015 | LAWRENCE HURLEY

[GIdget2004]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday ruled in favor of a Muslim prison inmate who challenged a regulation that prevented him from growing a beard.

The nine justices, on a 9-0 vote, said that the prison policy violated the religious rights of inmate Gregory Holt, who wants to grow a half-inch (1.3 cm) beard in accordance with his Muslim beliefs.

The court rejected the state's reasoning that the policy was needed for security reasons. Justice Samuel Alito, writing on behalf of the court, said the state already searches clothing and hair and had not given a valid reason why it could not also search beards.

Alito wrote that the prison's "interest in eliminating contraband cannot sustain its refusal to allow petitioner to grow a half-inch beard."

[The_Reader_David]

Actually, the set is not empty, but has three elements, each involving preventing access to firearms by a circumscribe group of people: convicted violent felons, the psychotic, and unsupervised children.

[ifinnegan]

“The court rejected the state’s reasoning that the policy was needed for security reasons.”

Who argued for the State?

It seems the argued in a way they knew would fail.

[NorthMountain]

1) Convicted violent felons are already prohibited by law from possessing firearms. Therefore, such prohibition is no longer a matter of legitimate advocacy.

2) Psychotic? Sez who? Have you ever filled out a Form 4473? Gun control advocates' concerns about mental health are illegitimate, as their advocacy is aimed at harassing the honest, sane gun-owner.

3) Unsupervised children? Have you ever filled out a Form 4473? Gun control advocates' concern is again illegitimate, as their activities are again aimed at harassing the honest, sane gun owner.

No, sir.

"[T]he legitimate concerns of gun-control advocates" is the empty set.

[goldi]

It is a good ruling. I couldn’t care less about the Muslim and his beard, but it’s good to know the Supreme Court is upholding his religious beliefs. It bodes will for others who will be bringing suits regarding their religious beliefs in the future.

[USCG SimTech]

Now the gay community needs to claim discrimination because they aren’t allowed to parade around with their junk hanging out because it impedes their ability to exercise their sexual trolling for takers. (I just threw up a little)

[Lurking Libertarian]

Last I checked, felons forfeit their rights upon conviction.

Not all of them; and specifically, they retain the right to practice their religion except to the extent that their religion interferes with the security interests of the prison.

[Lurking Libertarian]

What the hell is the Supreme Court doing giving an inmate privileges.

They are enforcing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the same statute that protected Hobby Lobby in last year's case.

[Lurking Libertarian]

SCOTUS.

[OneWingedShark]

Next up: The muslim “call-to-arms” (er, “call-to-prayers”) cacaphony over the prison loudspeakers will be deemed a “religious right” by our black-robed “betters”.

Maybe the Christian populous should petition for the traditional calls to prayer:

1. 6am
2. Sunrise
3. 9am
4. Noon
5. 3pm
6. 6pm
7. Before entering bed (i.e. lights out)
8. Midnight