Three prisoners have filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) policy requiring people to remove religious head coverings for mug shots.
Plaintiffs Julia Catlett, Tracy White and Semeria Greene claim the defendants’ policy requiring the removal of all religious garments violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
The class action lawsuit claims the plaintiffs were forced to remove their headwear to take mug shots, “creating a permanent public image of them without their religious headwear” and were required to carry and present an ID card bearing the image to male staff while they were in custody.
In addition, they say, the mug shots were posted on a public website, meaning it was exposed to both male and female members of the public.
“This practice alienates and oppresses faith communities throughout the State of Michigan’s prison system, and lacks a penological justification; therefore, it must be changed,” the class action lawsuit says.
Catlett and White, who are Muslim, wear a hijab; Greene, who is Moorish, wears a “turban style hijab.”
Both faith practices involve women wearing their hijab at all times if they are in the presence of men outside their immediate family, the lawsuit explains. Many believe the hijab fulfills the modesty required by the Quran and oral tradition.
The plaintiffs say they wear their hijabs every day and have for years.
“It is the sincerely held religious beliefs of the Plaintiffs that they are required to wear the hijab,” the class action lawsuit states.
The forced public removal of the hijab is “a profound defilement” of religious belief and is akin to forcing a secular person to “strip naked in front of strangers.”
Likewise, having the mug shots posted online in a public database is like “having a naked photograph of a secular person posted on the internet for all to view,” the plaintiffs argue.
The MDOC’s policy regarding the removal of head coverings for mug shots has been in place since 2011, the class action lawsuit says.
However, the policy contradicts other federal norms and practices.
According to the class action lawsuit, the U.S. Department of State allows those who wear religious head coverings to leave them on for passport photos, the class action lawsuit points out. And the department’s website allows those who are being photographed to wear their head covering if they sign a statement that the garment is “‘part of recognized, traditional religious attire that is customarily or required to be worn continuously in public.’”
A July 2012 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) memo permits religious head coverings in photos, stating USCIS “will accommodate an individual who wears headwear as part of their religious practices,” according to the plaintiffs. USCIS only asks someone to remove or adjust parts of the headwear that covers all or part of their face,” and even then, it is done in a private area with a photographer of their own gender.
Catlett, Greene and White say they have been wearing their head coverings the whole time they have been at the Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility (WHV) and, over their verbal objections, have had their mug shots taken several times after the forced removal of their hijabs.
According to the plaintiffs, those photos remain in the MDOC’s public database.
The women say they have pursued “administrative remedies” but have gotten no relief through that process.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that their Constitutional rights have been violated, as well as an order stopping the defendants from requiring the removal of religious head coverings for mug shots.
In addition, they are asking the Court to prohibit the defendants from creating a permanent public record of or disseminating the photos of any woman forced to remove their religious head or hair coverings for the photo.
The plaintiffs further want the defendants to be required to adopt nondiscriminatory policies in order to “prevent encroachment on the religious rights of arrestees and prisoners in the future” and for an award of punitive damages, costs, expenses and any other relief deemed proper.
They also demand a jury trial.
Do you think people should be required to remove their religious head coverings for mug shots? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.
The plaintiffs are represented by Amy V. Doukoure of the CAIR-MI Legal Fund and Daniel E. Manville of the MSU Civil Rights Clinic.
The Religious Coverings in Mug Shots Class Action Lawsuit is Julia Catlett, et al. v. Heidi Washington, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-13283-PDB-DRG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
NEC lawsuit: Families take action against Enfamil and Similac baby formula makers
September 10, 2025 | Legal News
One thought on Religious Head Coverings Should Be Allowed In Mug Shots, Class Action Lawsuit Says
Yes, they should be required to remove their face coverings for mug shots. You can not be positively identified in a photo if any part of your face is covered let alone most of it covered. You loose some privledges when you go to jail. These people want to maintain their rights from their countries but also want to claim constitutional rights here in America as well. Preferential treatment is not fair to Americans. 9/11 is plenty reason to require removal of any face coverings.