Inmate Loses Faith Case Against Hair Rule
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the hair-length regulation in California's prisons does not violate the rights of a Native American inmate, but an ACLU attorney still believes a religious freedom challenge can succeed.
The California Department of Corrections (CDC) regulation "is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," the court ruled Aug. 12 in rejecting the case of Philip Henderson who considers having his hair cut a defilement of his faith. Henderson v. Terhune.
Billy Warsoldier, another Native American, filed suit against the same rule in March, claiming prison officials penalized him for refusing to have a haircut. A federal judge denied his request for an injunction and his appeal is pending before the 9th Circuit.
Because Henderson brought a First Amendment challenge, the 9th Circuit applied the "rational basis" test of
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). Warsoldier, however, sued under the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act, which subjects a law affecting an inmate's religious expression to strict scrutiny.In Henderson, the 9th Circuit said, "We express no opinion about whether the CDC’s hair length regulation violates [RLUIPA]." Ben Wizner, an ACLU attorney for Warsoldier, thinks the decision "if anything, strengthens our chances."
"The court was not impressed by the state's justification" for the regulation, he says.
Among other things, the panel observed:
If long hair were just one of many possible forms of religious expression, the denial of that single avenue of expression would not be as problematic. However, in this case, Henderson asserts that by cutting his hair, he would be considered "defiled" and ... would thus be denied all means of religious expression.
8/16/04