Moskowitz v. Wilkinson

• Jurisdiction: United States

Moskowitz v. Wilkinson

432 F. Supp. 947 (1977)

Facts

Petitioner Moskowitz, an Orthodox Jewish prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut, brought a habeas corpus petition and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, which the court granted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, claiming a federal prison regulation that prohibited beards violated his First Amendment free exercise of religion. Moskowitz refused to cut his beard pursuant to a prison policy that prohibited inmates from wearing them. He argued that his religious beliefs forbade any cutting or shaving of his beard. He was the subject of four disciplinary proceedings for violating the policy. The disciplinary committee ordered that he be placed in disciplinary segregation and that he forfeit the good time he had accumulated. Federal authorities placed Moskowitz in disciplinary segregation for refusing to shave his beard in violation of prison regulations. He maintained that his religious beliefs forbid the shaving of his beard while federal authorities argued that recognition problems associated with beard removal made a No-Beard Rule necessary to identify prisoners within the prison system to prevent escapes.

Issue

Does Moskowitz's First Amendment free exercise of religion protect him from prison regulations requiring him to shave his beard?

Holding by the U.S. District Court

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut held that the federal prison regulation that requires inmates to shave their beards is unconstitutional when applied to prisoners who refuse to shave their beards for sincerely held religious reasons.

Reason

In this case, the actual issue for the District Court was whether the government's interest reasonably justified the regulation that prevented the petitioner's ability to observe his religious belief. The government held the No-Beard Rule was needed to effectively identify inmates to ensure prison security and to facilitate apprehension of inmates who escaped. The court cited Cruz v. Beto, where the Supreme Court held that prisoners do not lose their right to practice religion as a consequence of incarceration. The District Court also cited the Court's decision in Procunier v. Martinez where it required as a test that the prison must show that a restriction on religious freedom is justified by an important or substantial government interest and that such a restriction is reasonable to achieving that...