Win for Religious Freedom in Texas

We are pleased that the Supreme Court of Texas recently issued a unanimous opinion holding that a city in Texas violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Texas RFRA). In Barr v. City of Sinton, the ACLJ filed an amici curiae brief arguing for this result that was joined by David Sibley, who was the Senate sponsor of the Texas RFRA, Scott Hochberg, who was the House sponsor of the statute, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

The case involves Pastor Rick Barrs Philemon Homes ministry, a faith-based facility designed to house and help rehabilitate low-level offenders who have been released from state custody. The ministry reaches out to men released from prison to provide religious instruction and counsel. Shortly after Philemon Homes began operations, the City of Sinton, Texas enacted an ordinance stating that rehabilitation facilities may not be located within 1,000 feet of certain facilities, including houses of worship. The ordinance greatly impacted Philemon Homes because its facilities were within 1,000 feet of Pastor Barrs church and there were virtually no other locations within city limits that the ministry could relocate to.

Pastor Barr and Philemon Homes sued the City under the Texas RFRA, a statute modeled after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Texas RFRA provides that a government agency may not substantially burden a persons free exercise of religion unless the government can prove that its actions are the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. The Court of Appeals of Texas held that Pastor Barrs free exercise had not been substantially burdened because Philemon Homes could relocate to another city or the residents could be sent to the individual homes of members of Pastor Barrs congregation.

Among other things, our amici brief explained that the Citys ordinance substantially burdened Pastor Barrs free exercise of religion by forcing him to either permanently shut down Philemon Homes or relocate beyond city limits.  The Supreme Court of Texas agreed. The Court cited our briefs proposed definition of substantial burden and noted that the Texas RFRA requires a case-by-case inquiry into the existence of a substantial burden. The Court also rejected the Citys claim that its actions were justified by a compelling zoning or safety interest.

This was an important win for religious freedom that will likely impact zoning cases around the country.