Legal Research

Dreadlocks Are In?At Least for Now

By Terrye Conroy

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week in Smith v. Ozmint that the forced grooming of a Rastafarian man’s dreadlocks by South Carolina correctional officers violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The court held that ?the SCDC has not demonstrated in the summary judgment record before us that its policy of forcibly shaving the heads of MSU inmates who wear long hair as a matter of religious belief furthers a compelling governmental interest in space utilization, hygiene, and security by the least restrictive means.? Check out GPO Access for the full text of the Act and Cornell?s Legal Information Institute for the sections of the U.S. Code where the Act was codified.  Read more about the court?s reasoning on Findlaw?s Legal News Blog.  I?ve got to use this for my class. (Post-TC)

Full post as published by Cocky Law Blawg on August 07, 2009 (boomark / email).