Holt v. Hobbs (13-6827)

argument 13-6827

Holt v. Hobbs

Supreme Court of the United States 57 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in Holt v. Hobbs regarding religious beard accommodations?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 136827, Holt v. Hobbs. Mr. Laycock.

Professor Douglas Laycock 0:10

Mr. Chief Justice, it may please the Court. Forty other prison systems permit beards without a length limit, yet Arkansas prohibits even half an inch. And in their brief, they reject every means that courts have devised to evaluate their testimony. So what they really seek — It's absolute deference to anything they say just because they say it. And that would be to repeal this statute de facto. There may be deference to prison officials, but there must be concrete limits to that deference.

Unknown 0:42

If this prisoner wanted to have a full beard, would Raluper require that the prison administration allow him to do that?

Professor Douglas Laycock 0:58

Well, some courts have said yes. There's very little in this record about full beards and whether they're safe or whether they're dangerous. But the 40 states that permit them suggest that the state would have a difficult burden of proof. But that question is not presented here. Mr.

Unknown 1:13

Laycock, the problem I have with your client's claim of religious requirement is the religious requirement is that he grow a full beard, isn't it? Now, let's assume I'm in a religion that requires polygamy. I mean, could I say to the prison, well, you know, okay, I won't have three wives, just let me have two wives. I mean, you're still violating your religion, it seems to me, if he allows his beard to be clipped to one inch, isn't he?

Professor Douglas Laycock 1:48

Well, the religious teaching is a full beard. He testified that religiously, half an inch is better than nothing, and he explained that in terms of Hadith that he referenced. He's in a very difficult situation. I don't think he should be penalized for being reasonable here. He offered an extremely conservative compromise to the

Unknown 2:07

privilege. Well, religious beliefs aren't reasonable. I mean, religious beliefs are categorical, you know. God tells you, it's not a matter of being reasonable. God be reasonable. He's supposed to have a full beard. He's —

Professor Douglas Laycock 2:22

He's supposed to have a full beard, but a partial beard is better than none, and that's not just in secular terms. That's also in religious terms, which he explained on the record.

Unknown 2:30

Okay. You think on the record that's what his religion would require if he can't have a full beard? That's correct, Your Honor.

John G. Roberts 2:37

But, I mean, you're really just making your case too easy. I mean, one of the difficult issues in a case like this is where to draw the line. And you just say, well, we want to draw the line at half inch because that lets us win. And the next day, someone's going to be here with one inch, and maybe it'll be you, and then, you know, two inches. It seems to me you can't avoid the legal difficulty just by saying all we want is half an inch.

Professor Douglas Laycock 2:59

Well, most of the cases seek a full beard or full hair, and sooner or later you will have to decide one of those cases. But this case, he made a pro se decision to limit his request. The court expressly limited the question presented. So this case is only about — Well, but we have to

John G. Roberts 3:16

decide this case pursuant to a generally applicable legal principle. And that legal principle is one, it seems to me, that demands some sort of a limit. And if you're unwilling to articulate a limit to the principle itself, it becomes a little bit difficult to apply it and say, well, we don't know what the limit is, but because you're only asking a half inch, we'll apply a theoretical legal structure and say you fall within it.

Professor Douglas Laycock 3:43

Well, I think the limit has to be determined on a record in a case that is seeking a longer beard. I think You know, what — the larger issue than just half an inch that this case presents is how do you administer — the legislative history suggests deference to prison officials in the context of a compelling interest standard.

Unknown 4:04

Yeah, so maybe we should — maybe this was improvidently granted. I don't want to do these cases half inch by half inch. Let's take a case that involves a full beard. Okay. I mean, the next case will be one inch, then one and a half inches, two inches?

Professor Douglas Laycock 4:22

They're not going to come in that order.