Documents
ACLU of Arizona Letter on Border Patrol Confiscating Sikhs’ Turbans
Aug. 2 2022 — 11:20 a.m.

1
August 1, 2022
Via Electronic Mail
Commissioner Chris Magnus
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20229
DANIEL.J.HERMAN@cbp.dhs.gov
RE: Yuma Border Patrol Sector’s Practice of Confiscating Sikh Individuals’ Turbans
During Asylum Processing
Dear Commissioner Magnus,
We write to inform you of ongoing, serious religious-freedom violationsin the Yuma Border Patrol
Sector, where your agents are confiscating turbans from Sikh individuals during asylum
processing. In the last two months alone, our organizational partners in Arizona have documented
nearly 50 cases of asylees arriving from Yuma who reported that their religious headwear had been
taken by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and never returned or replaced.
1 These
practices blatantly violate federal law. They are also inconsistent with CBP’s own national
standards and contrary to the agency’s non-discrimination policy, which states that “CBP
employees must treat all individuals with dignity and respect…with full respect for individual
rights including…freedom of….religion.”2 We ask that you promptly investigate these civil-rights
violations and direct agents in the Yuma Border Patrol Sector to immediately cease these unlawful
practices. Furthermore, we respectfully request a meeting in the meantime to discuss your plan to
remedy the situation.
1 Between January 2022 and July 2022 there were a total of 65 reports that CBP removed religious headwear. Fortyseven of these incidents occurred in June and July 2022. These reports included one Muslim woman whose hijab was
seized and never returned during Border Patrol processing. However, because the other recent instances of religious
headwear removal involve Sikh individuals, this letter focuses on the confiscation of turbans. Nevertheless, our
concern extends to Yuma Border Patrol Sector’s practices with respect to all religious headwear.
2 See U.S. Customs and Border Protection, National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention and Search (T.E.D.S)
(Oct. 2015) Policy, 1.4 (Non-Discrimination) 1, 4, https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-
Feb/cbp-teds-policy-october2015.pdf.

2
I. Factual Background
a. Sikhism and the Religious Importance of the Turban
The Sikh faith is the world’s fifth largest organized religion. There are approximately 30 million
Sikhs worldwide, and over 500,000 Sikhs reside in the United States. Many Sikhs wear an external
uniform to unify and bind them to the beliefs of the religion and to always remind them of their
commitment to Sikh teachings. These articles of faith have deep spiritual significance, as they
signify an individual’s commitment to Sikhism and its highest ideals of love and service to
humanity. Unlike some other faiths, where only the clergy are in uniform, most initiated Sikhs
believe they are required to wear external articles of faith. The Sikh Code of Conduct, called the
Rehat Maryada, explicitly instructs that observant Sikhs wear a turban over their unshorn, uncut
hair.3
Many Sikhs consider their turban to be a precious gift from their Guru, and many wash their hands
before tying it. Unlike a hat, a turban must always cover a Sikh’s head. The turban reminds a Sikh
of their duty to maintain and uphold the core beliefs of the Sikh faith. When a Sikh ties a turban,
the turban ceases to be just a piece of cloth and becomes one and the same with the Sikh’s head. It
is a religious commitment without which many Sikhs may feel that they have ceased to be a Sikh.
Historically, uncut hair and turbans have been the most central feature of the Sikh identity. For
example, in the 18th century, Sikhs in South Asia were persecuted and forced to convert from their
religion. The method of forcing conversions was to remove a Sikh’s turban and cut off their hair.
Since then, forcibly removing or targeting a Sikh’s turban or facial hair has symbolized denying
that person the right to belong to the Sikh faith and is perceived by many as the most humiliating
and hurtful physical and spiritual injury that can be inflicted upon a Sikh.
b. Confiscation of Turbans by Yuma Border Patrol Sector
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) of Arizona operates a reception site in Phoenix (“the
Welcome Center”) that receives a large proportion of asylees who are released from Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) custody within Arizona. In the last two months, IRC has documented
almost 50 cases of asylees arriving from Yuma who reported that their religious headwear—
specifically, turbans—had been confiscated by CBP. While the Welcome Center has encountered
cases of religious headwear being confiscated every month of this year, in June 2022, the number
of reports rose sharply, prompting concern that border officials have ramped up their efforts to
seize these sacred items.
In response to these increasing reports of confiscated turbans, volunteers at the Welcome Center
have tried to source turbans from the local Sikh community to provide replacements. A generous
advocate has supplied the Welcome Center with more than fifty turbans by soliciting them from
3 See Ch. 10, Art.16(t), translated by W. H. McLeod: Textual Sources For the Study of Sikhism, Manchester University
Press, 1984.

3
family, friends, and congregations. Unfortunately, this is not a long-term solution because of the
sheer number of turbans needed.
Concerns about Border Patrol’s confiscation of religious headwear are not new. In March of 2019,
the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, the Office of the Inspector General, and CBP, among others, reporting that “many Sikh
immigrants have had their turbans and sacred religious bracelets . . . confiscated at the border.”4
The letter explained that these items are not returned “[d]espite repeated requests,” and asked that
officials investigate these and other religious-freedom violations. In a September 2020 follow-up
letter to the same offices, the ACLU again noted that “religious attire, such as head coverings, and
other religious articles . . . were confiscated and never returned.”5
More recently, since May, advocates working with Yuma asylees have repeatedly raised this issue
during government stakeholder meetings. IRC initially expressed its concern about the practice of
confiscating turbans at one of its weekly Maricopa County Asylum Stakeholders Calls. These
meetings are regularly attended by representatives of CBP, EOC Region IX SBCC, and
occasionally, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Since broaching the issue in
May, IRC has continued to highlight it as an ongoing problem at every subsequent meeting. IRC
also notified the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO) of its concerns during
an in-person meeting on June 14, 2022.
Beginning in early June, advocates also have discussed the religious headwear issue with DHS
officials at recurring stakeholder meetings with EOC Region IX SBCC. At the most recent meeting
on July 8, 2022 (with the ACLU of Arizona in attendance), CBP representatives claimed that the
agency confiscates turbans only when they pose a security risk and that agents decline to store the
turbans only when they are wet or damaged. The reports received by IRC, however, indicate
otherwise. During these meetings, officials seemed unaware of their obligations under CBP policy
and federal law to protect asylees’ religious-freedom rights and, when informed that the seizure of
turbans had markedly increased in recent months, they had no viable explanation for it.
Despite numerous contacts about this issue, to our knowledge, no meaningful investigation has
occurred.
6 Only this week did Chief John Modlin (CBP Tucson), who has attended the Maricopa
Asylum Stakeholders calls, finally reach out to IRC to state that he had raised the concern with the
CBP Yuma Sector, who informed him that processing officials were being retrained. But IRC has
yet to see any evidence of this. Indeed, as recently as this week, IRC has received additional reports
of turban seizures by Yuma Border Patrol.
4 ACLU Letter, Investigating religious-freedom violations by Border Patrol and ICE (Mar. 19, 2019)
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/3-15-19_aclu_request_for_investigation_of_religiousfreedom_violations_.pdf.
5 ACLU Letter, Investigating religious-freedom violations by DHS (Sept. 10, 2020),
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/follow-up_letter_to_dhs_oig_crcl_9-10-20.pdf.
6 Because Yuma CBP has been almost entirely absent from stakeholders’ calls pertaining to asylees in the Arizona
region, we and other advocates have been unable to ask them directly about their policies and procedures regarding
religious headwear.

4
II. Yuma Border Patrol Sector must immediately cease its unlawful practice of confiscating
Sikh asylees’ turbans.
CBP’s own policy requires that officers “remain cognizant of an individual’s religious beliefs
while accomplishing an enforcement action in a dignified and respectful manner.”7 And for good
reason: Many individuals seeking asylum, particularly those who are Sikh, have fled their home
countries due to religious persecution and should feel safe in practicing their faith in the United
States. The Yuma Border Patrol’s confiscation of Sikh individuals’ turbans not only ignores CBP
policy, but it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the
government from substantially burdening an individual’s religious exercise unless the burden “(1)
is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of
furthering that compelling governmental interest.”8
Federal courts have repeatedly held that denying a person of faith the right to wear religious
headgear imposes a substantial burden on their religious exercise.9 By confiscating and failing to
return Sikh individuals’ turbans, CBP directly interferes with their religious practice and forces
them to violate their religious beliefs. As discussed above, for many Sikhs, the turban is a central
aspect of their religious identity; exposing their “naked” heads to others is considered sacrilegious
and shameful.10 Those seeking asylum who have their religious headwear seized by border
officials must proceed through processing and short-term detention without it.11 They are then
released from Border Patrol’s custody without any means of obtaining a replacement.
This substantial burden is not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling interest.
Even assuming that officials have a compelling interest in inspecting turbans and religious
headwear for contraband or for other safety reasons, confiscating the turbans and refusing to return
them is an extreme and unnecessary approach. Rather than forcing Sikh individuals to remove
their turbans, officers could gently pat down the turbans or use a security wand to check them. If
7 See T.E.D.S., Policy 1.5 (Religious Sensitivity) at 4.
8 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. RFRA applies to any “branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other
person acting under color of law) of the United States.” Id. § 2000bb-2(1). This includes border patrol. See, e.g.,
United States v. Ramon, 86 F. Supp. 2d 665, 677 (W.D. Tex. 2000) (holding that border patrol’s policy of targeting
and stopping vehicles displaying religious symbols violated RFRA).
9 See, e.g., Singh v. McHugh, 185 F. Supp. 3d 201, 216-17 (D.D.C. 2016) (holding that Army’s denial of religious
accommodation constituted a substantial burden where Sikh plaintiff sincerely believed that not wearing his turban
would dishonor and offend God); cf. Singh v. Goord, 520 F. Supp. 2d 487, 503 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (prohibiting Sikh
prisoner from wearing his turban during outside transports substantially burdened his religious exercise because his
religious beliefs required him to wear it at all times); Ali v. Stephens, 69 F. Supp. 3d 633, 644 (E.D. Tex. 2014), aff’d,
822 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 2016) (prison rule barring religious headwear outside of cells and religious services
substantially burdened prisoner’s sincere belief that he must wear a kufi at all times).
10 See Neha Singh Gohil & Dawinder S. Sidhu, The Sikh Turban: Post-911 Challenges to This Article of Faith, 9
Rutgers J. L. & Religion 10 (2008) (explaining that most Sikhs who wear turbans typically do so “pursuant to religious
mandate” and that, for those individuals, “the turban is not a fashion trend or indicia of social standing—it is an
essential part of their faith).
11 “See T.E.D.S., Policy 4.1 (Duration of Detention) at 14 (Detainees should generally not be held for longer than 72
hours in CBP hold rooms or holding facilities.”).

5
there is a reason for a particular turban to be removed, the individual could be permitted to remove
it himself for inspection and then allowed to immediately retie it once any concerns are resolved.
After an initial inspection, there is simply no excuse for refusing Sikhs the right to wear their
turbans. Institutions with comparable (or even greater) security concerns explicitly authorize
religious headwear, including turbans. The Federal Bureau of Prisons, for example, has long
permitted yarmulkes, kufis, Native American headbands, Rastafarian crowns, and Sikh turbans, to
be worn “throughout the institution.”12 And ICE’s detention standards authorize the same,
mandating that, where a facility adopts restrictions on the color, size, or other feature of such
religious dress, it “must ensure that detainees are provided conforming religious headwear for free
or at a de minimu[s] cost.”13 Moreover, ICE policy requires officials to “consult a religious
authority before confiscation of a religious item that constitutes ‘soft’ contraband.”14 The standards
direct that “[r]religious headwear and other religious property shall be handled with respect at all
times, including during the intake process.”15
As the Supreme Court has explained, “the policies followed at other well-run institutions would
be relevant to a determination of the need for a particular type of restriction.”16 Because Yuma
Border Patrol Sector cannot possibly justify its practice of confiscating and effectively prohibiting
turbans while other institutions “with the same compelling interests . . . [have been] able to
accommodate the same religious practices,” officials’ conduct fails strict scrutiny under RFRA.17
III. Conclusion
Robust protections for religious exercise are crucial in settings where individuals are in
government custody. Yuma Border Patrol Sector’s actions against Sikh asylees are especially
egregious because the ability to wear a turban is a core tenet of the Sikh faith and religious practice.
Yuma officials must cease their practice of confiscating turbans or any other religious headwear.
We request that you take immediate and concrete steps to end all such confiscations in Yuma and
all other sectors. Lastly, we note that the permanent confiscation of religious headwear is but one
12 BOP Religious Beliefs and Practices Program Statement, No. P5360.09 (Dec. 31, 2004), § 14(b)(1),
https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5360_009.pdf (Dec. 2004).
13 ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011 (Rev. Dec. 2016), App’x 5.5A (Religious Headwear,
Garments, and Other Religious Property), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detentionstandards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf; id. § 5.5 (Religious Practices).
14 Id. § 2.3 (Contraband).
15 Id. § 5.5 (Religious Practices).
16 See Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 368 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
17 See Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005). To the extent that the Yuma Border Patrol Sector
treats Sikh religious headwear less favorably than religious headwear worn by individuals of other faiths, this practice
also violates the First Amendment. See generally Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S.
520 (1993) (singling out one faith for disfavorable treatment violates the Free Exercise Clause); Larson v. Valente,
456 U.S. 228 (1982) (holding that, under the Establishment Clause, the government must adhere to principle of
denominational neutrality).

6
piece of a more universal, well-documented, and recurring practice by agents in the Yuma Border
Patrol Sector of forcing apprehended migrants to discard nearly all of their personal property in
advance of processing. We will be following up with you in coming weeks to address this broader
problem, but we seek your immediate action to prevent the confiscation of turbans or religious
headwear.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter and to meeting to discuss next steps.
In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
Noah Schramm Vanessa Pineda
Border Policy Strategist Immigrants’ Rights Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona
nschramm@acluaz.org vpineda@acluaz.org
Heather L. Weaver Daniel Mach
Senior Staff Attorney Director
American Civil Liberties Union American Civil Liberties Union
Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief
hweaver@aclu.org dmach@aclu.org
CC:
Joseph V. Cuffari
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Joint.Intake@dhs.gov
Katherine Culliton Gonzalez
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
katherine.culliton-gonzalez@hq.dhs.gov

7
Assistant Commissioner Matthew Klein
Office of Professional Responsibility
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
JointIntake@cbp.dhs.gov
International Rescue Committee, Arizona
Senator Kyrsten Sinema
Senator Mark Kelly
Congressman Raúl Grijalva
Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick