Goring v. Aaron

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina

Goring v. Aaron

350 F. Supp. 1 (1972)

Facts

Goring, an Oglala Indian prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution at Sandstone, Minnesota, presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on which the court held a trial and evidentiary hearing at Minneapolis on September 22, 1972. He was sentenced by the U.S. District Court in South Dakota in 1969 to a five-year prison term for breaking and entering. On January 4 and 5, 1972, he was granted a furlough to leave the correctional institution to attend his father's funeral. Before departing, he promised that in return for such a privilege, he would obtain a haircut prior to or on his return so as to comply with prison regulations. Goring testified that on his father's grave, he made a "ceremonial Indian vow" that he would return to the old Indian tradition and religion, part of which includes not cutting his hair. On returning to the institution, he kept his prior promise and received a haircut that met the prison regulations. Later, he refused to have his hair cut and was confined to the isolation area of the Sandstone Institution, where he was told he was in violation of the haircut regulation. Goring has no mustache, sideburns, or beard, but his hair at the time of his confinement extended below the collar line and at the time of trial was an inch or more below the collar line. He had fifty-five days remaining on his original prison sentence.

Issue

Do prison haircut regulations deprive prisoners of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to religious freedom or expression and the equal protection of the law?

Holding

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that prison haircut regulations do not deprive prisoners of their First Amendment right to religious expression, nor do such policies deny them the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Reason

In this case, the petitioner argued that the hair regulations were not reasonable or necessary and did not accomplish any objective. In its rejection of this contention, the District Court cited Blake v. Pryse (444 F.2d 218, 8th Cir. 1971). In Blake, the court held that prison hair regulations were valid and reasonably supported by the requirements of identification, hygiene, and security. Moreover, the district court acknowledged that the regulation may apply to different persons in different ways depending on the amount and position of hair grown. Nevertheless, it posed the question, "Should the regulations...