Holt v. Hobbs
The Holt v. Hobbs case was about an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction who wanted to grow a beard due to religious purposes. The prisoner Gregory Holt (also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad) was a practicing Salafi Muslim who wanted to grow a beard for religious purposes. He wanted an injunction and temporary excuse from those of the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ grooming policy to grow a beard. The department allowed trimmed mustaches and quarter-inch bears for diagnoses dermatological problems but did not allow facial hair otherwise. Holt argued that growing a beard was necessary for part of the practice of his religion, Islam. He said that the grooming policy did not let him, and that there for the grooming policy was a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The verdict was that Holt would limit his beard to a length of one-half on an inch as a form of compromise with the policy.
This contradicts with the constitution because the first amendment of the bill of rights, which is in the constitution, is being contradicted. The first amendment does not allow Congress to take away freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to practice any religion. Also freedom of peaceful assembly and petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The bill of rights applies to everyone, even inmates. Although, when you are an inmate your rights have to be modified due to the situation. For example, you no longer have a right of privacy. This is the same with other common rights (bill of rights). When Holt wanted to grow a beard it was against rules because only those with dermatology issues could. Holt wanted to grow a bear for religious reasons but he was not allowed to. That is completely constitutional because like the right of privacy, his 1st amendment right, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” needed to be modified to for his prison life. Therefore the Holt v. Hobbs case and verdict is constitutional.
This contradicts with the constitution because the first amendment of the bill of rights, which is in the constitution, is being contradicted. The first amendment does not allow Congress to take away freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to practice any religion. Also freedom of peaceful assembly and petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The bill of rights applies to everyone, even inmates. Although, when you are an inmate your rights have to be modified due to the situation. For example, you no longer have a right of privacy. This is the same with other common rights (bill of rights). When Holt wanted to grow a beard it was against rules because only those with dermatology issues could. Holt wanted to grow a bear for religious reasons but he was not allowed to. That is completely constitutional because like the right of privacy, his 1st amendment right, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” needed to be modified to for his prison life. Therefore the Holt v. Hobbs case and verdict is constitutional.