Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
HOLT V. HOBBS: PETITIONER'S SIDE OF THE CASE
The objective of this study is to answer the legal question of whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections grooming policy violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by preventing Holt from growing a one-half inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner in this case, Gregory Holt is who also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Corrections and a Salafi Muslim filed seeking an injunction and requesting temporary relief from the Arkansas Department of Corrections policy on grooming reported to allow mustaches that were trimmed and beard that were one-quarter inch in length when dermatological problems were diagnosed by the prison's physicians. Holt claimed that the grooming policy violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Holt had agreed to limit the length of his beard to one-half inch in compromise with the prison policy. Temporary relief was granted by the district court however, the complaint was dismissed when noted by the court that the religion of Holt had been given extensive practice rights and that the grooming policy was such that was required for prison security...
This decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The Arkansas Department of Corrections grooming policy states "No inmates will be permitted to wear facial hair other than the neatly trimmed moustache that does not extend beyond the corner of the mouth or over the lips. Medical staff may prescribe that inmates with a diagnosed dermatological problem may wear facial hair no longer than one quarter of an inch." (Administrative Direction 90-04 cited in: Supreme Court of the United States, No. 13-6827, p. 1) it is stated that it is provided in Section 3 of the RLUIPA that "no state or local government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution unless the government shows that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and does so by the least restrictive means." (Section 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2) cited in Supreme Court of the United States, No. 13-6827, p. 1)
It is stated in the court document detailing this case on page 24 as follows: Of the forty-one jurisdictions without length limitations, thirty-four permit beards for all prisoners; seven (Arizona, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia) restrict…
References
Holt v. Hobbs 13-6827. Supreme Court of the United States.
Petitioner's Supplemental Brief. Holt v. Hobbs, 13-6827. Supreme Court of the United States.
Holt v. Hobbs (2014) Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-6827
Supreme Court Case The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was an extremely important one, and one which set a significant precedent in the United States that would not be overturned until the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the middle of the 20th century. The former case set the precedent for what was known as the separate but equal doctrine. The principle question considered in this case was
Supreme Court Case Supreme Court Decision in Re Waterman, 910 2D (N.H. 2006) The Case The case addressed in this section of the report is that of Supreme Court case In Re Waterman, 910 A.2d 1175 (N.H. 2006). In this case, Tracy Waterman, working as a trooper for the New Hampshire State Policy was informed on August 29, 3003 that Vicky Lemere, the wife of one of Waterman's fellow troopers, informed Lieutenant Nedeau,
While the decision has hung over states as one national standard, it infringes the essential principles of federalism and separation of powers that are rooted in the country's constitutional system (Silversten, 2011). During the time that the Supreme Court made this ruling, the state of Georgia basically had the same position on punishment for the crime of rape with many states. Actually, very few states permitted the executions or enforcement
Supreme Court cases (Muller V. Oregon) women's right Why it was an issue of national importance The Muller v. Oregon case was among the most crucial Supreme Court cases in the U.S. during the progressive regime. The case held an Oregon law that limited the working days for female wage employees to a maximum of ten hours. In 1908, this case created a precedent to expand access of national activities into the
7. Sester v. United States - Docket No., 10-7387 -- The question is whether a district court has authority to order a federal sentence to run consecutive to an anticipated, but not-yet-imposed, state sentence ? 8. Williams v. Illinois - Docket No., 10-8505 -- The question is whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the
long-term impact of Florence v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders. This will be accomplished by: studying the parties involved, discussing the facts of the case, identifying the constitutional issues, examining the decision in terms of the vote, the opinion of the court, the dissenting views and the significance of the case. Once this takes place, is when we can provide specific insights that will illustrate how this will affect