FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 12, 2014

CONTACT: Brooke Anderson, 334-265-2754 ext. 205, [email protected]

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - The ACLU of Alabama and Montgomery, Ala., attorney Mark Sabel filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court as a part of their continuing battle to protect the religious freedoms of Native Americans housed in Alabama prisons. Tribal religious customs provide for Native Americans to wear their hair long, but the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) requires haircuts and has refused to consider a religious exemption to the hair length requirement.

“Permitting American Indians to wear their hair unshorn in the traditional manner while housed in a correctional facility is not a novel practice,” said lead attorney Mark Sabel. “It is a customary, time-tested accommodation of this widespread religious practice that is permitted on a daily basis in 40 state and federal prison systems across the nation.”

The ADOC argues that that long hair is unclean, unsafe, and may pose security risks such as being pulled in a fight. The ADOC acknowledges that it never looked at the policy other prison systems that permit long hair, asserting instead that its policy works in Alabama.  According to Randall Marshall, legal director of the ACLU of Alabama, "the 'this is Alabama' defense is simply not enough."

“Just because a person is in prison does not mean that they aren’t entitled to exercise their religious beliefs,” said Susan Watson, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama. “By forcing an inmate to cut his hair they are literally stripping him of his federal right to practice his faith.”

"Prisons should be faith-enabling, not faith-frustrating, institutions,” Mark Sabel added.

In the two decades since it was filed, the case has undergone a number of hearings and appeals. During one of the appeals, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) to ensure that prisoners could continue to practice their religion while in prison. Despite RLUIPA, the 11th Circuit Federal Court ruled in favor of ADOC.

“The ADOC cannot support their claim that they are unable to make such accommodations,” said Mark Sabel. “The Eleventh Circuit consciously created an inter-circuit conflict in a foundational area of religious freedom, making this an excellent vehicle for Supreme Court review.”

For media inquiries and additional information, please contact:
Brooke Anderson, Communications Manager, 334-265-2754 ext. 205 or 334-202-9122

###