Holt v. Hobbs: Blades in Beards?

Arkansas Department of Corrections
Link to reading

     The case of Holt v. Hobbs is a peculiar case of religious liberty in the United States, in the context of the justice system. Gregory Holt is a Muslim inmate in Arkansas, jailed for "breaking into his ex-girlfriend's house and slitting her throat." Though the actions that put him in jail may be despicable, they are not the focus of this issue. Holt claims that as a Muslim, he must wear a half-inch beard, something that goes directly against Arkansas, which forbids such actions in fear of things like blades and drugs hiding in such beards. In arguing against Arkansas, Holt brought up the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which essentially says that any government with federal funding can't really do anything to an expression of an inmate's religion unless it's absolutely necessary.
   At the Supreme Court level, Arkansas' case against Holt seems to not be holding up well, with the justices not seeing on the same level as those from Arkansas. One of the justices, Samuel Alito, had dealt with a similar issue in the past, ruling that two Muslim police officers in Newark could grow their beards for religious purposes. Based on his history and as well as his exchange with state lawyer David Curran in the link, it seems like he is in favor of Holt here.
  This case brings up quite a few interesting questions.
- Is Arkansas really acting fairly in their treatment of Holt? The state already allows quarter-inch beards for those with skin conditions and 43 others allow them for all prisoners, so do you think there may be a sort of overreaction or over-stringency present?
-How do you think this case and other similar ones will help shape how to deal with issues regarding modern definitions religious freedom? Will it make a big impact or will it sort of not really do anything? Could the fact that this case is in the Supreme Court sort of help create a sort of protocol for lower courts to follow?
-Holt committed a most serious crime; under this, should he have the same right to religious freedoms in prison, or should he be limited from them? Are Arkansas' fears really justified? Do they have any right to limit religious freedom for this?