Deference and Prisoner Accommodations Post-Holt: Moving Rluipa toward "Strict in Theory, Strict in Fact"

By Bollman, Barrick | Northwestern University Law Review, January 1, 2018 | Go to article overview

Deference and Prisoner Accommodations Post-Holt: Moving Rluipa toward "Strict in Theory, Strict in Fact"


Bollman, Barrick, Northwestern University Law Review


INTRODUCTION

Imagine you are Billy Soza Warsoldier, a Cahuilla Native American. Your religious faith teaches that hair length symbolizes wisdom and requires that hair can only be shorn upon the death of a relative. You sincerely believe that cutting your hair will cost you knowledge and render you unable to join your ancestors in the afterlife. In fact, your hair has not been cut for over thirty years. Now, imagine that you are incarcerated, and the prison requires all prisoners' hair to be cut short because long hair could be used to hide contraband.1 Can the prison require you to violate the tenets of your religion by cutting your hair?

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA)2 provides that the government may not substantially burden a prisoner's religious exercise unless the burden is "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and is "the least restrictive means of furthering that interest."3 Therefore, if the prison failed to allow you an accommodation, you could challenge that decision in court.4 But the location of the prison greatly impacts your chances of success. If the prison is located in the Ninth Circuit, which has closely examined prison policies to determine if they survive RLUIPA's strict scrutiny test,5 then it is more likely that a court would find RLUIPA requires an accommodation for your long hair. If the prison is located within the Sixth Circuit, on the other hand, you may be more likely to lose your claim because that particular circuit has afforded significant deference to prison officials' assertions that a given policy is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.6

This confusion in the lower courts stems from the Supreme Court's contradictory instructions regarding the deference due to prison officials' determination under RLUIPA. The Court first addressed the constitutionality of RLUIPA in Cutter v. Wilkinson.1 While holding the statute constitutional,8 the Court noted that lower courts should apply "due deference" to prison officials' determinations of compelling interest and least restrictive means,9 even though these two terms are traditionally understood to mean that strict scrutiny applies.10 This contradiction led some courts to be deferential to prison officials' determinations in applying the compelling interest and least restrictive means test.11 Other courts, however, consequently took a "hard look" approach, which is closer to true strict scrutiny, when analyzing prison policies under RLUIPA.12 PostCutter, therefore, a prisoner might not get an accommodation to which she is statutorily entitled and may be forced to violate sincerely held religious beliefs at the behest of the government, simply due to an accident of geography.

In 2015, the Court considered RLUIPA again in Holt v. Hobbs to determine whether a no-facial-hair policy violated the rights of a Muslim prisoner who wished to grow a half-inch beard pursuant to his faith.13 Though this presented an opportunity to clarify whether courts should apply strict scrutiny or be deferential to prison officials' claims, the Court failed to discuss Cutter's deference instruction at all and instead only noted that "unquestioning deference" is not permitted.14 Because Holt did not explicitly overrule Cutter, the Supreme Court has endorsed two seemingly contradictory standards. In Cutter, the Court asked for deference to be given to prison officials, but in Holt, the Court hewed closer to strict scrutiny and noted only that courts should not give officials "unquestioning deference."

This Note provides the first comprehensive analysis of Holt's application by the lower courts since the case was decided. A quantitative examination of each RLUIPA decision citing Holt and Cutter in this period shows that lower courts have generally heeded Holt's instruction to undertake a more fact-specific inquiry once it determines a prisoner's religious exercise has been substantially burdened (a seemingly higher bar post-Holt). …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Deference and Prisoner Accommodations Post-Holt: Moving Rluipa toward "Strict in Theory, Strict in Fact"
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.