are all those practices which we approved up for grabs now under rolupa? there were restrictions on receipt of publications was one. >> i think the analysis is different now. it could be litigated. any of these claims could be litigated. the state would then have the burden of coming forward to show that the restriction would, in fact, be a least restrictive -- >> so all those we approved, correspondence limitations, all those would have to be looked at anew under the standard? >> i think that's right because if you were to go back to pre-rolupa case law, no one would doubt that a state could, in fact, prohibit a half inch beard under the prior constitutional standards, but congress has set a higher bar and it imposes upon states the obligation to come forward to explain and justify it. now -- >> where are you on the full beard? >> on the full beard, i think there might well be a difference, but, again, rolupa depends on a showing in litigation by the state that the means selected is least restrictive means. a state may well be able to show that a full bea