Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000, in part, to require corrections officials to demonstrate a compelling justification before carrying out policies and practices that hinder or prevent a prisoner's free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

William Couch, a Muslim prisoner in Virginia, filed a lawsuit asserting that corrections officials violated the RLUIPA and First Amendment by barring him from growing a 1/ 8- inch beard that he believed was required by his religion. The officials claimed that the rule was essential to prevent prisoners from hiding weapons and contraband in their beards and to prevent prisoners from changing their appearance after an escape by shaving off the beard. They also claimed that beards interfered with quick identification of prisoners within the institution.

Couch's lawyer argued in response that the federal government operated its prisons without any significant problems even though federal prison policies do not bar prisoners from growing beards. The lawyer also argued that a 1/ 8- inch beard could never be used to hide weapons and contraband and, moreover, had relatively little impact on the prisoner's appearance for identification purposes. The lawyer also pointed out that the Virginia prisons do, in fact, permit beards for medical reasons for prisoners who could demonstrate that they suffered significant skin irritations from shaving. Thus, in the view of Couch's attorney, the state did not have a compelling justification to prevent Couch from practicing his religion by growing a very short beard.

1. Which amendment applies to this case?
2. If you were the judge, what would you decide?

    (a) Is the regulation reasonably related to a legitimate, neutral government interest?

    (b) Does the regulation leave open another way for an inmate to exercise his or her constitutional rights?

     (c) How does the issue impact other prisoners, prison guards or officials and prison resources?

     (d) Are there obvious, easy alternatives to the regulation that would not restrict an inmate's right to  free expression?

1. Did corrections officials present a compelling justification for applying this restriction to Couch?
2. Are Couch's First Amendment rights concerning this aspect free exercise of religion actually a threat to safety and security in the prison? Why or why not?
3. Should he be able to grow his beard? 

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 The amendment that applies to this case is the First Amendment which includes the clause for the free exercise of religion Additionally the Religiou... View the full answer