Supreme Court Case Study: Holt V. Ray Hobbs
` Holt v. Hobbs Summarization:
The case between petitioner Gregory Holt and responder Ray Hobbs who was the
director of the Arkansas Department of Corrections circles around the idea of freedom
of religion. Now, having the freedom to practice whatever religion that you would like
does bring its advantages and its disadvantages as a citizen of the United States. In this
case, Supreme Court Judges had to make a decision over the whole controversial topic
of freedom of religion. The opinion of the court was written by Justice Alito in which
tells the scenario of what happened to Gregory Holt, which starts off with him as an
inmate and having the religion as being a Muslim. But the Arkansas …show more content…
But the lower courts did not pay any mind to the
complaint made by Gregory and in my opinion, though the rules and regulations of the
prison were to keep the inmates groomed but at the same time it is in the constitution,
and to be more specific the Bill of Rights, which would be going against it is overall
unconstitutional.
Based on the lower court’s decision, they decided to exercise the rights of mainly the
state and not look at the rights of the individual. In defense of the correctional facility,
the Judge even stated the fact that the inmate could have just followed other forms of
practices that were native to his religion like either dieting or praying. But what I believe
that the judge failed to realize is the fact that religion does not solely apply to just one
action or practice, but it is all of the religion that is applied to the freedom of religion.
Again the judge and the state did have their reasons, one being the fact that in the
Beard, many harmful things could be hidden like a knife or drugs maybe, but it could all
have been resolved by letting Gregory Holt keep the beard but just have to search …show more content…
Even in the past, there have been many cases in my opinion in which the lower courts
have sided with the state while many supreme court cases have sided with the rights of
the individual. For example in the Texas v. Johnson case, it may not deal with religion
but it does correlate to an extent with the current case at hand. So, in the Texas v.
Johnson case, the Supreme Court sided in the end that a person as a citizen of the
United States has the right of freedom of speech, which includes burning the American
flag. The same decision applies to the Holt v. Hobbs case in which the Supreme Court
decided that freedom of religion does apply to Gregory Holt being able to keep his
beard for religious purposes, even though it did go against the regulations of the
correctional facility of trimming the beard for safety hazards. But overall in my opinion,
this demonstrates that the judicial system favors the rights of the people, which is a
good thing since this country was founded on a democracy, by the people and for
The case between petitioner Gregory Holt and responder Ray Hobbs who was the
director of the Arkansas Department of Corrections circles around the idea of freedom
of religion. Now, having the freedom to practice whatever religion that you would like
does bring its advantages and its disadvantages as a citizen of the United States. In this
case, Supreme Court Judges had to make a decision over the whole controversial topic
of freedom of religion. The opinion of the court was written by Justice Alito in which
tells the scenario of what happened to Gregory Holt, which starts off with him as an
inmate and having the religion as being a Muslim. But the Arkansas …show more content…
But the lower courts did not pay any mind to the
complaint made by Gregory and in my opinion, though the rules and regulations of the
prison were to keep the inmates groomed but at the same time it is in the constitution,
and to be more specific the Bill of Rights, which would be going against it is overall
unconstitutional.
Based on the lower court’s decision, they decided to exercise the rights of mainly the
state and not look at the rights of the individual. In defense of the correctional facility,
the Judge even stated the fact that the inmate could have just followed other forms of
practices that were native to his religion like either dieting or praying. But what I believe
that the judge failed to realize is the fact that religion does not solely apply to just one
action or practice, but it is all of the religion that is applied to the freedom of religion.
Again the judge and the state did have their reasons, one being the fact that in the
Beard, many harmful things could be hidden like a knife or drugs maybe, but it could all
have been resolved by letting Gregory Holt keep the beard but just have to search …show more content…
Even in the past, there have been many cases in my opinion in which the lower courts
have sided with the state while many supreme court cases have sided with the rights of
the individual. For example in the Texas v. Johnson case, it may not deal with religion
but it does correlate to an extent with the current case at hand. So, in the Texas v.
Johnson case, the Supreme Court sided in the end that a person as a citizen of the
United States has the right of freedom of speech, which includes burning the American
flag. The same decision applies to the Holt v. Hobbs case in which the Supreme Court
decided that freedom of religion does apply to Gregory Holt being able to keep his
beard for religious purposes, even though it did go against the regulations of the
correctional facility of trimming the beard for safety hazards. But overall in my opinion,
this demonstrates that the judicial system favors the rights of the people, which is a
good thing since this country was founded on a democracy, by the people and for