Page 354
SGT. FITTS; DEPUTY WARDEN McCANTS; WARDEN MONTGOMERY; BERNARD WALKER, DEPUTY WARDEN; MARVIN T. JARRETT; RILEY JAMES; RICARDO GRANT; YASIN ABDUL-HAKIM; ABREHAM PEOPLES; JAMES D. ROBINSON, ASU SUPERVISOR; GERALDINE MIRO, WARDEN; LAURIE BESSINGER, WARDEN; CHAPLAIN SCOTLAND; J. P. HALL; GLYNN SHERMAN, CHAPLAIN; JIM BEAM, WARDEN; OSCAR FAULKENBERRY; C. J. CEPAK, WARDEN; VAUGHN JACKSON; WILLIAM WELDON, WARDEN; WILLIAM DAVIS, WARDEN; GEORGE MARTIN, III, WARDEN; TONY STRAWHORN; SAM D. O’KELLEY; MILAN O’BRADOVICH; ELAINE ROBINSON, DEPUTY WARDEN; JOSEPH BLACK, DEPUTY WARDEN; PHILIP McLEOD; LARRY BATSON; CLARENCE BENJAMIN; R. WOODBERRY; FRED THOMPSON; OFFICER MARTIN; N. McLENDON; IRC BROWN; R. ADAMS; MORRIS ELMORE; JOHN PATE; PAUL BUTLER; JOHN MAXEY; J.D. WESSINGER; FRANK MADDOX; SERGEANT CASEY; T. WHITE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MANIGO; W. RICHARDSON; E. SPIGNER; R. RICE; P. LITTLE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LEE; S. CHISHOLM; N. McFADDEN; S. MUHAMMAD; GARY BUTTS; SIX UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, IN “RIOT” UNIT; BOBBY RUTHERFORD; JAMES SAVAGE; RICHARD BUNDRICK; NATALIE WILLIAMS; WILLIAM MARTIN; TERREL CANNON, SR.; W. RICHARDSON; REGGIE ROUSE; DR. BOOLWARE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. CLARENCE HINES; JOHN COOKE WILSON; ORLANDO BRINSON; KHALIL KASSON ALI AL-MUNIN; COY S. GUNTER; LUMUMBA MUMIA TAFARI-I A/K/A LUMMIE HEARNS; MALIK BAQI; TAHRIM SUPREME C. JIHAD; KENNETH WASHINGTON; SALAAM A. HAKIM A/K/A MICHAEL BAILEY; ZAKARIYA ABDUL SHAHID; RAY CHARLES DEGRAFFENREID; MAURICE LIVINGSTON; DEMARCUS MARSHALL; HAKIM SABUR MUHAMMAD; RAS KOLONJI MUATA KAFELE; WILLIE JAMES ASBURY; MUSTAFA ABDULLAH A. AL-MUJAHID; JOHN MICHAEL GLADNEY; DAVIS YOUNG; BRUCE SCOTT; CHRIS LEFEVER; DASHEL STROBERT; VINCENT KEMP; LARRY BOBEAN; ROYCE MAURICE COLLINS; JOHN BRINSON; GARY L. MOORE; JAME A. KHALIQ; LESTER YOUNG; PHILIP H. TANNER; MICHAEL LANDRY; DONCHELL WADE BLATCH; WILLIAM R. SMITH; MARK T. LARSEN; KAHIM KHAMIL MUHAMMAD; ADRIAN HICKS; MATIN ABDUL ALI MUNTAQIM A/K/A MARSHALL L. LAND; YUSUF AHMAD ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD; HEYWARD HARRISON, JR.; BARRY ALAN FOWLER; RAHEEM ABDULLAH AL-RAQIB; JAMES B. PATTERSON; DON ERIC ROBERTSON; TYRONE MITCHELL; OMAR ABDEL AL NUMIT A/K/A JOHN JAMES BELL; CECIL ALLEN SIMMONS; JOSEPH T. JACKSON; WILLIE GARY; KOJO SOWETO AMEEN; MALCOM OMAWALE ABDULLAH; GERALD GARNER; QUASH A. ABBASS A/K/A CHARLES JAMES LEE A/K/A RUSH ABDUL B. ALI ABU ABBASS; GREGORY L. FENNELL; RAS KOLONJI MUTATA KAFELE; EDWARD BULL; FREDDIE GREEN; UTAMU MFUME; CURTIS A. NICHOLAS; JIMMY L. BELTON; KEVIN SMITH; RAS NJONJO AFI KHAFRE; FRANK J. BURGESS; EDDIE L. HALL; STEVEN PHILLIPS; THEODORE HARRISON, JR.; KEVIN SMITH; RODERICK DENNIS FOLKS; LLEWELLYN NELSON; LUMMIE HEARINS; SHAKA MACUMBA ZULU X A/K/A MICHAEL W. MONTGOMERY; GREGORY CAMPBELL; GREGG L. RAY; RUFUS MULDROW; KHAYRI ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD; DERRELL EDWARDS; DONALD LLOYD; TIMOTHY C. BAKER; AHMAD M. MUJIHADIN A/K/A ROBERT FROST; TAFARA MOYENDA A/K/A ROBERT FROST; JEROME WILLIAMS; ELVIS C. TAYLOR; EVERTON BIN CROSBY; WILLIAM J. COPELAND; OWEN HENDERSON; CHARLES SERGIO HAGLER, JR.; COLVILLE BRISSETT; AHMAD KANS ABDUL SATTAR; MARCHS A. JOSEPH; MIKAIL ABDULLAH; RONNIE BRIGHTMAN; TERRY MICHAEL CASSELL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, AND TOMMY E. BLACKMON; WILLIAM WHALEY; REGINALD R. FERGUSON; MICHAEL CAMPBELL; VAN TYLER, JR.; ISMAIL ABDUR RASHID; MACK ALLEN DAVIS, PLAINTIFFS, AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR-APPELLEE, v. EDSEL T. TAYLOR, WARDEN; ROBERT WARD, WARDEN; JAMES ROBINSON, ASU SUPERVISOR; GERALDINE MIRO, WARDEN; LAURIE BESSINGER, WARDEN; CHAPLAIN SCOTLAND;
Page 355
J. P. HALL; GLYNN SHERMAN, CHAPLAIN; JIM BEAM, WARDEN; OSCAR FAULKENBERRY; C. J. CEPAK, WARDEN; VAUGHN JACKSON; WILLIAM WELDON, WARDEN; WILLIAM DAVIS, WARDEN; GEORGE MARTIN, III; TONY STRAWHORN; SAM D. O’KELLEY; MILAN O’BRADOVICH; ELAINE ROBINSON, DEPUTY WARDEN; JOSEPH BLACK, DEPUTY WARDEN; PHILIP McLEOD; LARRY BATSON; CLARENCE BENJAMIN; R. WOODBERRY; FRED THOMPSON; OFFICER MARTIN; N. McLENDON; IRC BROWN; R. ADAMS; MORRIS ELMORE; JOHN PATE; PAUL BUTLER; JOHN MAXEY; J. D. WESSINGER; FRANK MADDOX; SERGEANT CASEY; T. WHITE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MANIGO; W. RICHARDSON; E. SPIGNER; R. RICE; P. LITTLE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LEE; S. CHISHOLM; N. McFADDEN; S. MUHAMMAD; GARY BUTTS; SIX UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS IN “RIOT” UNIT; BOBBY RUTHERFORD; JAMES SAVAGE; RICHARD BUNDRICK; NATALIE WILLIAMS; WILLIAM MARTIN; TERREL CANNON, SR.; W. RICHARDSON; REGGIE ROUSE; DR. BOOLWARE; SUSAN HILTON; JOHN W. PORTER; RAY REESE; YOHANCE MOYENDA; LT. FNU; SGT. FITTS; DEPUTY WARDEN McCANTS; WARDEN MONTGOMERY; BERNARD WALKER, DEPUTY WARDEN; MARVIN T. JARRETT; RILEY JAMES; RICARDO GRANT; YASIN ABDUL-HAKIM; ABREHAM PEOPLES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DAVID BEASLEY, GOVERNOR; MICHAEL MOORE, DIRECTOR, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; OMAR SHAHEED; TERRY BROOKS; RALPH MEDLOCK, DEFENDANTS.
No. 96-7318, No. 96-7402.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Argued: April 8, 1998.
Decided: June 23, 1998.
Page 356
Patrick James Flynn, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants.
David Clifford Eckstrom, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS POLLARD, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Thomas C.R. Legare, Jr., NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS POLLARD, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina; Andrew F. Lindemann, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; James M. Brailsford, III, ROBINSON, McFADDEN MOORE, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1281-6-3AK, CA-93-1603, CA-94-1388, CA-95-530, CA-95-1396, CA-95-1397, CA-95-1293, CA-95-1417, CA-95-1418, CA-95-1473, CA-95-1494, CA-95-1499, CA-95-1540, CA-95-1558, CA-95-1559, CA-95-1560, CA-95-1567, CA-95-1583, CA-95-1584, CA-95-1617, CA-95-1619, CA-95-1628, CA-95-1667, CA-95-1670, CA-95-1679, CA-95-1681, CA-95-1686, CA-95-1687, CA-95-1725, CA-95-1726, CA-95-1734, CA-95-1735, CA-95-1757, CA-95-1765, CA-95-1768, CA-95-1807, CA-95-1812, CA-95-1813, CA-95-1816, CA-95-1836, CA-95-1839, CA-95-1840, CA-95-1841, CA-95-1855, CA-95-1857, CA-95-1861, CA-95-1864, CA-95-1865, CA-95-1875, CA-95-1876, CA-95-1879, CA-95-1935, CA-95-1968, CA-95-1971, CA-95-1992, CA-95-2049, CA-95-2050, CA-95-2100, CA-95-2105, CA-95-2120, CA-95-2121, CA-95-2122, CA-95-2123, CA-95-2124, CA-95-2153, CA-95-2212, CA-95-2214, CA-95-2274, CA-95-2322, CA-95-2562, CA-95-2587, CA-95-2591, CA-95-2933, CA-95-2984, CA-95-3064, CA-95-3105, CA-95-3143, CA-95-3200, CA-95-3347, CA-95-3410, CA-95-3484, CA-95-3912, CA-95-3969, CA-95-4028, CA-95-4064, CA-95-4072, CA-96-569, CA-96-572, CA-96-574, CA-96-595, CA-96-682, CA-96-755, CA-96-924, CA-96-931, CA-96-945, CA-96-1338, CA-96-380, CA-96-661).
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Hamilton wrote the opinion, in which Judge Ervin and Judge Osteen joined.
Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and OSTEEN, United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
[1] OPINIONHAMILTON, Circuit Judge:
[2] This case arises from complaints filed by approximately 100 inmates confined by the State of South Carolina (the Inmates) against the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) and various state officers and prison officials (collectively, the Defendants). The Inmates are Muslims, Rastafarians, Native Americans, and other individuals who are challenging a grooming policy that requires all male inmates to keep their hair short and their faces shaven (the Grooming Policy). The Inmates claim that the Grooming Policy forces them to compromise their religious beliefs and practices, and therefore violates their rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. I. Because we conclude that the Grooming Policy does not violate the Inmates’ free exercise rights, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.I.
[3] Soon after his appointment in 1995 as Director of the Department of Corrections, Michael Moore instituted a prison reform program that included the Grooming Policy at issue in this case. The Grooming Policy requires, inter alia, that all male inmates keep their hair short and their faces shaven. Braids, plaits, mohawks and other “extreme” hair styles are prohibited. Neatly-groomed mustaches are permitted, but beards are forbidden unless the inmate has a medical condition that would be aggravated by shaving.
Page 357
and the United States intervened to argue for RFRA’s constitutionality.
[7] The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On July 17, 1996, the district court entered an order granting the Defendants’ motion, upholding the Grooming Policy under both RFRA and the First Amendment.* After the Inmates filed their notice of appeal, the *The district court also granted summary judgment to the defendants sued in their official capacities because they were entitled to immunity Defendants cross-appealed the constitutionality of RFRA. On June 25, 1997, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997), holding RFRA to be unconstitutional. As a result of Flores, we now hold that the Inmates’ [8] RFRA claims and the Defendants’ cross-appeal are moot.II.A.
[9] We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
B.
[10] The Free Exercise Clause, which has been made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940), provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. U.S. Const. amend. I. Accordingly, the clause forbids state governments from adopting laws designed to suppress religious beliefs or practices. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 523 (1993). In struggling to define the limits on government action that impacts the exercise of religion, the Supreme Court has formulated several different tests. See, e.g., Employment Division, Dep’t of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 876-79 (1990) (formulating a “generally applicable regulation” test), and O’Lone v. Estate of under the Eleventh Amendment, and granted summary judgment to the defendants sued in their individual capacities because they were entitled to qualified immunity. The Inmates do not contest these rulings on appeal; they now seek only prospective, injunctive relief from the Grooming Policy. Consequently, the Department of Corrections and the State of South Carolina are the only Defendants involved in this appeal.
1.
[12] The Supreme Court held in Smith that a neutral, generally applicable law does not offend the Free Exercise Clause, even if the law has an incidental effect on religious practice. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 876-79; see also American Life League, Inc. v. Reno, 47 F.3d 642, 654 (4th Cir. 1995) (explaining Smith). A law is considered neutral if it proscribes conduct without regard to whether that conduct is religiously motivated or not. See id. If the law makes no distinction between action based on religious conviction and action based on secular views, it is a generally applicable law, neutral toward religion and not violative of the First Amendment. See id. The Grooming Policy satisfies these requirements.
Page 358
that the Grooming Policy was implemented to help eliminate contraband, reduce gang activity, identify inmates, and maintain order in South Carolina’s prisons. There is no suggestion that the Grooming Policy was enacted to burden anyone’s free exercise rights, or was at all motivated because of the religious beliefs or practices of any inmate. Thus, although the Grooming Policy may have an incidental effect of preventing the Inmates from wearing their hair and beards as their religion prescribes, under Smith, the Grooming Policy is a neutral and generally applicable regulation and, therefore, does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
2.
[14] In O’Lone, the Supreme Court held that a prison regulation that impinges on an inmate’s free exercise rights is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 349 (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). We assume for purposes of this case, without deciding, that the Grooming Policy infringes on the Inmates’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The threshold issue is, therefore, whether the Grooming Policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
3.
[18] Our decision in Gallahan v. Hollyfield, 670 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1982), does not require a different result. In Gallahan, we struck down a Virginia prison regulation which required all inmates to cut their hair so that it did not extend below the top of the collar. Id. at 1346-47. In reaching this decision, we held that a prison regulation which infringes upon a prisoner’s free exercise rights must be ” substantially justified” by considerations of prison safety, discipline, and order. Id. at 1346. Furthermore, we found the asserted justifications for the Virginia prison regulation — that long hair could be used to shroud an inmate’s features and prevent quick identification; could provide a hiding place for contraband; and is unsanitary — to be “overly
Page 359
broad” or “lacking in substance.” Id. at 1346.
[19] As the Inmates tacitly concede, the test developed in Gallahan is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s tests set forth in O’Lone and Smith. Accordingly, the Gallahan test is no longer good law in this circuit. Nonetheless, the Inmates claim that the asserted justifications in this case, which are similar to the asserted justifications in Gallahan, are “overly broad” or “lacking in substance.” We disagree. [20] The evidence in this case is overwhelming that the Defendants were addressing actual dangerous situations that had arisen in South Carolina prisons, situations that would be addressed effectively through the Grooming Policy. Accordingly, Gallahan is also distinguishable on its facts.III.
[21] For the reasons stated above, the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants is hereby