Two Muslim women sued Orange County after being forced to remove their hijabs for booking photos during their arrest in 2024, alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Salma Nasoordeen and Aini were arrested during a protest and taken to the Intake and Release Center, where they were told they had to remove their religious head coverings despite their objections. The photos remain stored in Orange County Sheriff's Department computers accessible to male staff members, creating what the plaintiffs argued was an ongoing violation of their religious beliefs.
Judge Selna found that the county substantially burdened the women's religious exercise and failed to use the least restrictive means to achieve its security interests. 'The Court finds that Defendants placed substantial pressure on both Plaintiffs to remove their hijabs for photos and videos,' Selna wrote, noting that deputies told Nasoordeen 'the faster she complied, the faster she could be released.' The judge emphasized that the women 'need not prove that these images and videos have been viewed or disseminated for the Court to find that their religious beliefs were burdened.'
In particularly pointed language, Judge Selna rejected the county's argument that its actions were the least restrictive means of achieving security goals. 'Defendants have not even attempted to make such a showing,' he wrote. 'And Defendants cannot. OCSD later adopted a less restrictive policy, allowing inmates to wear their religious headwear for the booking photo.' The court found this policy change proved that the original restrictions were 'more restrictive than necessary to further the stated interests.'
The case arose from protests on May 15-16, 2024, when both women were arrested and processed under the sheriff's department's then-current policy stating that 'religious head coverings may not be worn during the booking photo process.' During booking, Nasoordeen was told by a female deputy to remove her hijab despite a privacy divider being erected, though she observed a male deputy visible through glass. Aini was forced to remove her hijab twice for photographs and also had her hijab removed and refastened by a deputy in view of male arrestees. Both women were subsequently released, and the sheriff's department has since updated its policies to accommodate religious head coverings.
The county argued that the women could not bring RLUIPA claims because they were no longer in custody, and that any future harm from the photos was speculative. Defendants claimed they actively accommodated the women's religious concerns by having female deputies conduct the booking and using privacy dividers. They also argued that booking photos serve compelling government interests in safety and criminal justice integrity by helping law enforcement track, classify, and monitor inmates.
Judge Selna found these arguments unavailing, ruling that ongoing access to the photos constituted irreparable harm. 'Today, all sworn OCSD personnel, which include men, can access images of the Plaintiffs without hijabs,' he wrote. The court noted that under the plaintiffs' religious beliefs, having their images viewed by 'unspecified parties necessary to this litigation' constituted concrete harm. Selna also pointed to similar cases where courts had entertained RLUIPA claims after a plaintiff's release when the violation stemmed from conduct during custody.
The preliminary injunction requires Orange County to redact the hair, neck, and ears in the women's booking photos and restrict access to original images so they are only viewable by necessary trial team members. The county must also refrain from releasing the unredacted images to the public. Judge Selna ordered defendants to update the court within seven days on compliance steps, with plaintiffs permitted to respond within five days if they find the county's measures inadequate.
The ruling adds to growing case law protecting Muslim women's right to wear hijabs in government settings. Judge Selna emphasized that the relief serves the public interest because it aligns with RLUIPA's construction as providing 'broad protection of religious exercise.' The decision comes as various law enforcement agencies have adopted policies permitting religious head coverings in booking photographs, which the court cited as evidence that less restrictive alternatives exist.