PRISON GROOMING RULES HIT ROADBLOCK

Virginia May Enforce No-Beard Policy, but Not Against Inmates From District

A federal judge in Washington ruled yesterday that D.C. inmates housed in
Virginia's prisons cannot yet be forced to cut their hair and shave their
beards under a grooming policy that was to take effect today.

U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. issued a temporary restraining
order that blocks prison officials from enforcing the policy against any
D.C. inmate who raises religious objections. A total of 1,300 prisoners
from the District are being held in Virginia under a contract with the D.C.
government.

But the policy will take effect for the overwhelming majority of the
state's 32,000 prison inmates, who had until today to comply or face
sanctions such as solitary confinement. Kennedy's order covered only the
D.C. contingent. Virginia officials contend that beards and long hair,
including braids, cornrows and ponytails, give prisoners places to hide
drugs and weapons and maintain some grooming habits also can pose health
hazards.

Virginia prison officials said they had not yet seen the court order but
would review it once it arrived. Kennedy's order requires copies be posted
in prisons so all employees can see his instructions.

The Virginia attorney general's office said prison officials have prevailed
so far in four other legal challenges to the prison grooming policy, all of
which were filed by inmates from Virginia. Federal judges in Alexandria and
Roanoke have refused to issue temporary restraining orders in those cases.

In Alexandria, Judge Claude M. Hilton yesterday rejected a request for a
temporary restraining order from eight inmates at Lunenberg Correctional
Center in Victoria, Va. The inmates argued gender bias because the grooming
policy allows women to wear ponytails and shoulder-length hair while men
must cut their hair above shirt collars and around ears.

But the four D.C. prisoners filed their suit last Friday in U.S. District
Court in Washington and cited religious convictions, saying their faiths
prohibited them from shaving their beards or cutting their hair. The suit
covered only D.C. inmates housed in Virginia who have specific religious
beliefs. It noted the District's own prison system imposes no such grooming
restrictions. Although he did not issue a final ruling, Kennedy appeared
sympathetic, saying the inmates seemed to face a "Hobson's choice."

Most of the D.C. inmates housed in Virginia are at a facility known as
Sussex II, a new prison in Waverly, near the North Carolina border. The
D.C. government moved 1,211 prisoners there as part of its plans to close
the Lorton Correctional Complex in southern Fairfax County by 2001. An
additional 87 prisoners are at Red Onion State Prison in the far
southwestern corner of the state, and two are at Greensville Correctional
Center in Jarratt.

The D.C. lawsuit contended that Virginia's policy violates tenets held by
Muslims and Rastafarians. One plaintiff, Isadore Gartrell, shaved under
duress, the suit said, "thus shaming himself and sinning against Allah."

The suit was filed against the D.C. Department of Corrections, which has
ultimate responsibility for prisoners serving time for D.C. offenses.
Virginia prison officials were not named in the suit. D.C. government
attorneys contended no emergency action by Kennedy was necessary.

Kennedy said he wants to hear more arguments on the religious freedom issue
at a hearing Jan. 3. In the meantime, he ordered officials to take no
action against D.C. prisoners with "sincerely held religious beliefs."

"We believe the judge did the right thing to protect the status quo and
protect the prisoners' rights," said E. Desmond Hogan, a pro bono attorney
from the Washington firm of Hogan and Hartson. The D.C. chapter of the
American Civil Liberties Union assisted the firm in filing the lawsuit.

Kent Willis, director of the ACLU's Virginia chapter, said a challenge in
Virginia will be more difficult because the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Richmond upheld a virtually identical grooming policy in a case
from South Carolina last year. The federal court in the District is in a
different circuit, meaning it was not bound by that precedent.