Goulden v. Oliver Et Al.

Background

An Alabama inmate says he is an Orthodox Jew and that prison officials forced him to shave and cut his hair, which he says violates his religious beliefs. He sued under a federal civil-rights law, claiming the prison’s grooming rules violated his rights under the Constitution’s protections for religion. The federal trial court dismissed his claim because it found the rules served cleanliness and identification needs. A single judge of the appeals court denied his request to appeal without an opinion.

Reasoning

The narrow question was whether the courts should allow this inmate to press a religious freedom claim against the prison’s grooming rule. The denial of review leaves the trial-court dismissal in place. In his written disagreement, one Justice explained that earlier circuit law relied on a case called Brooks, but more recent Supreme Court decisions require that prison regulations be open to constitutional review. That Justice said a hearing might show the inmate’s beliefs were insincere or might justify the prison’s rule, but he would not assume there are no facts that could win the inmate relief.

Real world impact

The decision to deny review means this inmate does not get a new hearing from the Supreme Court, so the dismissal remains effective for him. The opinion notes that several appeals courts have reached different results on similar grooming and religious-exercise claims, and that factual hearings can be necessary to resolve sincerity and reasonableness issues.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissenting Justice, joined by another Justice, would have allowed the inmate to proceed without fees, granted review, vacated the appeals order, and sent the case back for a merits hearing.