What historical examples show legal challenges to textured hair?

Roots

To stand before the radiant landscape of textured hair, to witness its profound contours and spirals, is to confront a living archive. Its every strand holds stories stretching back through millennia, whispers of ancestral touch, of identity worn with pride beneath sun-drenched skies. But this heritage, so deeply woven into the very fibre of self, has not been without its trials.

Over generations, the textured crown became a battleground, its very existence subjected to decrees, judgments, and societal pressures aiming to diminish its glory. This exploration guides us through the echoes of those legal skirmishes, revealing how deeply the law reached into the intimate world of one’s coif, seeking to control, to erase, to redefine what it meant to simply exist with hair spun from the Earth’s own patterns.

Early Enactments ❉ Shadows Across The Scalp

The dawn of legal challenges to textured hair casts long shadows across the era of the transatlantic slave trade and its aftermath. It began, in many ways, with a violent excision of identity. Upon capture, African individuals often had their heads shaved. This was not a mere act of hygiene.

It was a deliberate, dehumanizing ritual, meant to strip them of their communal markers, their spiritual connections, and their very sense of self. Hair in many African societies denoted age, marital status, tribal belonging, and even wealth. To remove it was to sever a profound link to one’s ancestral lineage, rendering the individual an anonymous, disposable commodity. (Halo Collective, 2025) (African American Museum of Iowa, 2024)

The insidious classification of textured hair as “wool” or “fur” by European colonizers reinforced a fabricated hierarchy, a biological lie constructed to justify brutal systems of oppression. This language, devoid of humanity, aimed to place African hair outside the bounds of human normalcy, paving the way for policies that would control and demean it. As enslaved people arrived in the “New World,” the forced erasure continued.

Some, particularly those working in plantation houses, were compelled to style their hair to mimic the straightened, European aesthetics of their enslavers, while others were made to cover their natural textures with head coverings, regardless of their intrinsic beauty or careful styling. (IDRA, 2025) (Wikipedia, 2024)

Legal restrictions on textured hair are historical echoes of systematic attempts to control identity and diminish Black personhood.

The Tignon Laws ❉ A Veil of Resistance

Perhaps one of the most stark and earliest examples of direct legal interference with textured hair in the Americas arrived in late 18th-century New Orleans. The Spanish colonial governor, Esteban Rodriguez Miró, in 1786, enacted the infamous Tignon Laws. These laws targeted free women of African descent, particularly Creole women, who had cultivated a vibrant presence in society, often adorning their elaborately styled natural hair with jewels, beads, and ribbons.

Their elegance and poise, and the attention they garnered from white men, were seen as a direct threat to the established social order and the perceived status of white women. (Thrifts & Tangles, 2021) (Odele Beauty, 2021) (Reddit, 2024)

The Tignon Laws mandated that these women cover their hair with a Tignon, a simple cloth or kerchief, in public. The stated intent was to visually mark them as members of a lower social class, akin to enslaved people, regardless of their freedom. Yet, the human spirit, resilient and defiant, found ways to subvert these oppressive mandates. Rather than submitting meekly, these women transformed the tignon itself into a symbol of continued self-expression.

They used vibrant, luxurious fabrics, often tying them in intricate, artistic patterns that celebrated their heritage. What was intended as a badge of shame became a statement of enduring beauty and cultural pride, a powerful, unspoken resistance against legislative attempts to control their physical presence and their spirits. (Reframe52, 2024) (Thrifts & Tangles, 2021)

The very existence of such a law highlights the profound significance attributed to textured hair—not simply as an aesthetic choice, but as a marker of identity, status, and even perceived threat within a racially stratified society. The authorities understood the power residing in a woman’s crown and sought to regulate it, only to be met with ingenuity and persistent cultural affirmation.

Ritual

The journey of legal challenges to textured hair extends beyond early colonial decrees, moving into the era of American nationhood and the continuing struggle for civil rights. The societal pressure to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards gained pervasive ground, subtly shaping expectations in workplaces and schools. This pressure, while often unwritten, served as a powerful, coercive force, creating a new kind of legal challenge where the very legitimacy of textured hair was questioned in formal settings.

Why Did Straightened Hair Become a Social Norm?

After the abolition of slavery, the formal chains of bondage were broken, yet the invisible bonds of systemic racism persisted, deeply influencing beauty norms. “Good hair” became synonymous with straighter textures or looser curls, a reflection of white beauty standards normalized across the diaspora. This pervasive idea that natural texture was somehow “unkempt” or “unprofessional” propelled the growth of industries catering to hair alteration, from hot combs to chemical relaxers.

For many Black individuals, particularly women, straightening their hair became a perceived prerequisite for social mobility and professional opportunities, a means of assimilation into white-dominated spaces. (Halo Collective, 2025) (Being Black, 2024)

The pressure to alter one’s hair was not always codified in law, yet it functioned as an unyielding social decree. This unwritten mandate often translated into concrete disadvantages in employment and education. The assumption was that textured hair, in its natural state, was inherently disorderly, unprofessional, or even rebellious. This sentiment, rooted in centuries of anti-Black bias, laid the groundwork for disputes that would eventually reach the courts, forcing legal systems to confront the racial implications of appearance policies.

Does Law Protect Hair Expression?

The mid-20th century, with the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, brought a powerful cultural shift. The “Black is Beautiful” movement heralded a reclaiming of identity, and the Afro became a potent symbol of Black pride, cultural heritage, and defiance against oppressive norms. This embrace of natural texture inevitably collided with existing grooming codes in workplaces and schools, leading to some of the first direct legal confrontations over hair discrimination beyond the Tignon era. (Adjoaa, 2024) (Refinery29, 2021)

An early and significant case was Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance in 1976. In this instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a race discrimination lawsuit against an employer, ruling that discrimination against afros could indeed constitute racial bias.

This was a critical, albeit limited, victory, suggesting that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could extend to protect natural hairstyles. The court recognized the link between the Afro and racial identity, a crucial step. (JSTOR Daily, 2019)

However, this initial progress was met with setbacks. As protective styles like braids and cornrows gained popularity in the 1980s and 1990s, they too faced legal challenges. The argument often put forth by employers was that these styles, unlike the Afro, were “mutable” characteristics—meaning they could be changed—and thus were not inherently linked to race. A landmark, and ultimately disheartening, ruling came in the 1981 case of Rogers v.

American Airlines. The court sided with the airline, determining that cornrows were not an immutable racial characteristic. This ruling established a problematic precedent, allowing companies to discriminate against specific protective styles without facing repercussions under existing anti-discrimination laws. (JSTOR Daily, 2019) (Adjoaa, 2024)

The legacy of these cases created a legal landscape where Black individuals, particularly women, continually faced the choice between conforming to Eurocentric beauty standards or risking employment and educational opportunities. The message was clear ❉ certain expressions of textured hair heritage were deemed less professional, less acceptable, and therefore, legally vulnerable. This era underscored the urgent need for clearer, more explicit legal protections that truly understood the intrinsic link between hair and racial identity.

Relay

The narrative of legal challenges to textured hair shifts in the 21st century, revealing a renewed collective strength and a more direct confrontation with deeply embedded biases. The resurgence of the natural hair movement, amplified by digital spaces, catalyzed a powerful advocacy for legislative change, seeking to dismantle discriminatory practices piece by piece.

How Does The CROWN Act Protect Heritage?

The recognition that systemic racism continually manifested through hair discrimination galvanized advocates. The response came in the form of the CROWN Act, an acronym for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. This legislative effort aims to prohibit discrimination based on hair texture and culturally significant protective hairstyles.

California signed the first CROWN Act into law in 2019, paving the way for a growing number of states to follow suit. (Wikipedia, 2023) (Odele Beauty, 2021)

The CROWN Act explicitly defines race to include hair texture and protective styles such as Locs, Braids, Twists, Bantu Knots, and Afros. This clarity counters previous judicial interpretations that deemed these styles “mutable” and therefore outside the scope of racial discrimination protections under earlier civil rights legislation. The law seeks to address the undeniable reality that grooming policies, often presented as race-neutral, disproportionately affect Black and Brown individuals, perpetuating stereotypes that Black hair is inherently unprofessional or unruly. (LDF, 2025) (EPI, 2023)

The act does not merely grant permission to wear natural styles. It stands as a legislative affirmation of heritage, asserting that expressions of one’s racial and cultural identity through hair are valid and protected within educational and professional spheres. This legal framework begins to unravel centuries of negative perceptions and structural barriers, striving for a world where authenticity of appearance does not equate to a denial of opportunity.

The CROWN Act represents a modern legal affirmation of Black hair heritage, challenging centuries of discrimination.

What Recent Cases Show Continued Bias?

Despite the passage of CROWN Act legislation in many states, the struggle for equitable treatment remains, revealing the deep entrenchment of discriminatory attitudes. Recent high-profile cases underscore the continuing need for vigilance and legal reinforcement.

• Darryl George ❉ In Texas, a high school junior, Darryl George, faced ongoing disciplinary action and suspension due to the length of his locs, which school administrators claimed violated their dress code. This occurred even after Texas had passed its own version of the CROWN Act. The school’s interpretation focused on the length, not the style itself, highlighting how deeply ingrained biases can seek loopholes in new laws. His case became a national symbol of the ongoing fight against hair discrimination in schools, forcing a deeper examination of how intent versus impact plays out in policy enforcement. (EPI, 2024) (IDRA, 2025)
• Ruby Williams ❉ Across the Atlantic, in the UK, Ruby Williams was repeatedly sent home from school at 14 for her Afro being “too big.” Her family pursued legal action, resulting in a settlement. This case, and others like Chikayzea Flanders (dreadlocks in school) and Lara Odoffin (job offer withdrawn for braids), underscore that hair discrimination is not confined to the United States but is a global manifestation of Eurocentric beauty standards impacting Black and mixed-race communities. (Halo Collective, 2025)

These cases reveal a persistent disconnect ❉ while laws are changing, the societal prejudices that fueled historical challenges to textured hair often linger. They remind us that legal frameworks are but one part of a larger battle for true acceptance and respect for diverse forms of heritage. The fight continues to ensure that the spirit of laws like the CROWN Act is fully realized, not just on paper, but in the lived experiences of individuals celebrating their inherent, ancestral beauty.

Moreover, the impact of such discrimination extends beyond lost opportunities. Studies indicate that Black women face a higher likelihood of experiencing hair discrimination in job recruitment, often being perceived as less professional when wearing natural styles. For instance, a 2020 study by Michigan State University and Duke University revealed that Black women with natural hairstyles were less likely to be considered for interviews than white women or Black women with straightened hair.

This data points to the subtle yet pervasive biases that legal measures still contend with, as the perception of “professionalism” itself remains tethered to Eurocentric aesthetics. (LDF, 2025) (Odele Beauty, 2021)

Reflection

The chronicle of legal challenges against textured hair is a testament to the enduring power of identity and the persistent struggle against forced conformity. From the audacious spirit that transformed a punitive tignon into a crown of defiance to the contemporary battles for the CROWN Act, each moment speaks volumes about the deep-seated heritage woven into every coil and curl. It serves as a living library of resistance, a profound meditation on how society has, through laws and unspoken rules, sought to manage and diminish the very essence of Black and mixed-race beauty.

This is a legacy of resilience, where ancestral practices and natural forms were not merely fashion choices but acts of cultural survival, demanding recognition and respect. The path forward remains one of continued affirmation, ensuring that the wisdom of the past truly guides a future where every strand stands unburdened, honored for its unique, historical, and inherent splendor.