A new case will test whether the justices' defense of conscience in Hobby Lobby applies to minority religions like Muslims, or just to Christians.<\/p>\n
iulia.pirornea\/Flickr <\/p>\n
Religious freedom in the United States has ebbed and flowed between two competing concepts: the principled view that religion is a matter of individual conscience that cannot be invaded by the government, and the practical concern once expressed by Justice Antonin Scalia that accommodating all religious practices in our diverse society would be courting anarchy. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that closely held corporations, whose owners objected to contraception on account of sincere Christian beliefs, could not be forced by the Affordable Care Act to include certain contraceptives in their employee insurance plans. In supporting the religious rights of business owners over a national health-care policy predicated on broad participation, the Roberts Court seemed to stake its place on the more protective end of the religious-freedom spectrum. <\/p>\n
But the idea that Hobby Lobby creates robust protections will be credible only if the justices are willing to recognize the religious freedom of marginalized religious minoritiesnot just the Judeo-Christian tradition. The next religious-freedom case to come before the Court, Holt v. Hobbs, will test whether the Roberts Courts stance on religious freedom includes a minority faith, Islam, practiced by a disfavored member of our society: a prisoner. At stake are both the state of religious freedom in the country and the Courts reputation. <\/p>\n
Hobby Lobby Is Already Creating New Religious Demands on Obama <\/p>\n
Holt involves Gregory Holt, an inmate in Arkansas also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad. A dispute arose between Holt and the states Department of Correction when he sought to grow a one-half-inch beard in observance of his faith. According to the departments grooming policies, inmates may only grow a neatly trimmed mustache. In 2011, Holt filed a lawsuit against the director of the department, Ray Hobbs, and other state employees, saying that the prison had violated his religious rights. After decisions by federal trial and appeals courts in favor of the department, Holt filed a hand-written petition to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments in Holt on October 7. <\/p>\n
If Hobby Lobby and federal law are faithfully applied, Holt should prevail. Prisoners surrender many of their rights at the prison gates. Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, the Supreme Court wrote in Price v. Johnston more than 60 years ago. In 2000, however, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to help safeguard inmates religious freedom. The law states that the government may not place a substantial burden on a prisoners ability to practice his or her religion unless that burden is the least-restrictive means to achieve a compelling goal. <\/p>\n
This standard may sound familiarRLUIPA is the sister statute to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, the federal law which was at issue in Hobby Lobby. These laws apply to different laws implicating religious freedomRFRA only to federal laws and RLUIPA to the land use and prison contextsbut both ask whether a religious burden is the least-restrictive means of accomplishing the governments compelling goals. <\/p>\n
In this case, there is no dispute that the prison regulations substantially burden Holts religious freedom. His Hobsons choiceeither obey the prison grooming policies and violate his religious beliefs, or adhere to his conscience and face disciplinary measuresis a quintessential substantial burden. <\/p>\n
But the prison authorities have a compelling reason to restrict Holts ability to practice his religion. In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court simply assumed the federal government had sufficient reasons for requiring contraceptive coverage. In Holt, it will likely agree with the departments position that the no-beard policy enhances prison safety and security by removing an important hiding place for contraband and by facilitating the identification of inmates who wish to engage in violence or escape. On their own, however, these reasons dont seem to be enough to satisfy RLUIPA. The regulations will also have to pass the statutes least restrictive means test: The government must meet its goals in the way that best preserves religious liberty. This was also the sticking point in Hobby Lobby. In that case, the government had already made exemptions for religious nonprofit organizations, which undermined its argument that religious exemptions could not be made for certain for-profit corporations. Holt involves a similar situation: Arkansass prisons already offer medical exemptions to their grooming policies, which makes it difficult to argue that religious exemptions are not possible. As a federal appeals court wrote in Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, which concerned Newarks police-department grooming policies, We are at a loss to understand why religious exemptions threaten important city interests but medical exemptions do not. The decision was written by then-Judge Samuel Alito, author of the Hobby Lobby opinion. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
More: <\/p>\n
How Serious Is the Supreme Court About Religious Freedom?<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A new case will test whether the justices' defense of conscience in Hobby Lobby applies to minority religions like Muslims, or just to Christians. iulia.pirornea\/Flickr Religious freedom in the United States has ebbed and flowed between two competing concepts: the principled view that religion is a matter of individual conscience that cannot be invaded by the government, and the practical concern once expressed by Justice Antonin Scalia that accommodating all religious practices in our diverse society would be courting anarchy. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v Continue reading