Beginning in 2011 Alabama Pastor Ricky Martin saw an opportunity to expand the impact of his ministry. Through his work in Alabama state prisons as a chaplain, Martin witnessed the treatment of sex offenders, and saw an opportunity to do the Lord’s work in their lives. Martin referenced several Bible verses that he interpreted, as Pastor of Triumph Church in Chilton County, to require, as a feature of his religious practice to,” serve God by caring for “the least of these.” Matthew 25:40. Case 2:14-cv-00905-WKW-SRW Page 4” In fulfilling this call to action, Martin saw one clear solution that he could offer as a land owner who was familiar with the requirements of the Alabama prison system. By law, sex offenders in Alabama are required to have housing lined up before they can be released, which is where Martin saw his opportunity to serve. He began putting up trailers behind his church, which was adjacent to his home, where he would transitionally house the sex offenders until they could find more permanent housing. The housing came with a set of rules that promoted socially conservative behavior, personal responsibility, and required an openness to the teaching and practice of Christianity. By providing a stable transition for the sex offenders, Martin hoped to help them become contributing members of society. You may question this housing arrangements perception by the town, but it was widely supported by regular yard sales in front of the Church to financially support the venture. It was seen as a good Christian venture by the community, and no complaints were made to law enforcement throughout its existence. However, in 2014 a few members of the Alabama State House of Representatives drafted House Bill 556, to apply only to Chilton County to prevent the co-residence of more than one non-related sex offender on one property and that any situation where this did happen, was a fineable nuisance to the State. A decision was not made until 2016, when the case was thrown out after the former House Bill 556 had been repealed.
Being
defended by the ALCU, Martin raised four axes on which he disputed the enforcement
of the law. First among these was a violation of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, that his religious beliefs were being
substantially burdened by the state, with no evidence of any compelling
interest, and certainly not by the least restrictive means. Additionally,
Martin was having his First Amendment right to Free Exercise impeded, it was
clear in the news reported intent of the legislators, to stop Martin’s religious
practice. Although the law was facially neutral, as in the case Church of Lukumi Babalou Aye v. City of
Hialeah, there was clear, documented intent to restrict a specific distasteful
religious practice. Martin also argued the law as it was written was a Bill of
Attainder, and a violation of his right to Due Process, as no evidence existed
that housing the sex offenders together was a nuisance.
In my opinion, this case is much more serious that the relatively small scope of county courthouses may imply, and should not be simply wiped away in the face of repealed legislation. I see this case as equally inflammatory as Church of Lukumi Babalou Aye v. City of Hialeah. While the legislation in Martin v. Houston may not have been as offensive or culturally directed as that in Church v. City of Hialeah, it is equally offensive to the Free Exercise Clause. This law sought to stop a free citizen, not only from practicing their religion, but from preforming an act of civil service in trying to restore the societal inclusivity of the sex offenders. Simply because the housing of the sex offenders was presumably offensive to the legislators, the believed it was within their authority as elected officials to impede upon Pastor Rick Martins free exercise. Had this law not been repealed it would have widened the scope of religious persecution in the legal system and would have set a dangerous precedent had its influence been widened. While the defendant may argue that this concentration of sex offenders may be a threat or ‘nuisance’ to society, that assertion is not borne out by the facts. In their argument, the plaintiff included quotes from local law enforcement who said that the living arrangement was convenient for when the sex offenders needed to be checked in on. Additionally, the group lived there without serious incident for many years. Given the lack of evidence for a state interest in disbanding the housing situation as it exists on Martin’s property, I cannot stomach such a substantial burden on a practice so key to the practice of religion, and neither should the judge and jury of Chilton County, or any court across the United States.
https://www.aclu.org/cases/martin-v-houston
9 comments:
I agree with your assessment of this case based on the precedent that is set by Lukumi v. Hialeah. It is the intentions of the new law to bar this pastor from fulfilling his religious duties as he understands them that makes it discriminatory and not neutral. It doesn't seem justifiable to target legislation at this particular manifestation of religion, particularly without a well articulated compelling state interest.
I also agree with your outlook of this case. I agree that the precedent of Lukumi v. Hialeah clearly shows that there is a violation of Free Exercise. The law/policy in question here is clearly not neutral as it only applies to the specific county, like we saw in the precedent. Additionally, like Emma mentioned, there does not appear to be a compelling state interest for this policy to be enacted. Finally, Martin believes that it is his religious duty to act, so there is a burden on his Free Exercise.
I agree with your opinion that the bill passed by the Alabama Legislature is an infringement of the plaintiff's right to free exercise. This bill clearly targets religion, as it was only applied to Chilton County where Pastor Ricky Martin lived and provided housing for registered sex offenders out of prison. If Martin did not follow this bill and would have to pay a fine for practicing his religious beliefs, I believe that would be a substantial burden on his free exercise. Though I do believe this is an infringement of Martin's rights, clearly set in the precedent of Lukumi v Hialeah mentioned above, I do think there could be a case for the state to make that they have a compelling interest in keeping the community safe from sex offenders. Though if they wanted to do this, I believe the bill would have to be more neutral, rather than just targeting the one county where Martin lived.
I definitely agree with your perspective on this issue. Not only does the state not really have a compelling interest to violate Pastor Martin's free exercise, I would argue that he's actually acting within the interests of the state. Instead of having non-rehabilitated sex offenders in disparate counties, he's gathering them all together in a removed way so that they're less of a threat to society. Not only that, he's trying to change their behavior, which is absolutely within the interests of the state of Alabama. The bill that was passed by the Alabama Legislature, as Jenny said, also is specifically targeting Chilton County, showing its explicit targeting of his religious free exercise.
I find your case for Ricky Martin quite compelling. I will extend a hand to those working within the legislature though. I am not familiar with the church, nor the substance of that community in particular. What I mean is that you make the claim that the community has existed without any great legal incident occurring, presumably since its founding. I have not looked into the history of crime in the area, so I simply do not if that is true. I will take your word for it, since everyone else in the community seemed to think the opposite. Given that that is the case, I agree that to force Pastor Martin to close his store would be inappropriate, as well as a violation of his first amendment right to free exercise.
This case is very interesting in my opinion. While yes it seems like it would be a problem to house sex offenders in a neighborhood together, I find it hard to place a restriction on it after he has already started. This law was not neutral and was created to stop his religious view of what he thought was correct. If he finds that it is his religious duty to help those in need, it cannot be up to the state to stop that. Also, maybe Martin would not feel so inclined to help out if the state provided a means to help sex offenders.
This is by far the most interesting case I've read on the blog this semester. On one hand,I can see the obvious issues with housing a community of sex offenders on the same property. On the other hand, I also have very little trust in the criminal justice system and do not see how it could be in the state's best interest to try and deter someone from doing work that would help rehabilitate them. This law was not neutral at all and in fact, it seems like it was created with the specific intention of barring this one person from exercising their religion and using their religion to help others in their community. Crime is inevitable in any community and the idea that an expectation of crime is enough to force someone to compromise their own religious beliefs and stop acting on their faith seems ludicrous.
What an interesting case! In regards to the author's assessment of the case, I agree that the establishment of the new law was obviously targeting Pastor Ricky Martin, much like the Lukumi v. Hialeah case. Going off the decision in that case, I think it would be hard to make an argument that the new law was neutral. However, I have different feelings towards the conversation surrounding whether or not there is compelling state interest in regards to housing numerous sex offenders together behind a church. Surely, children are attending services inside the building; not to mention, many churches have ties with schools, whether it be actual academics, or Sunday school. Does it make tactical sense to house individuals who have been previously found guilt of sexual assault near a location children frequent? If I were a parent, I certainly would not be taking my children to that church anymore. Finally, a previous comment read that preventing the pastor from helping the men would be preventing the pastor from practicing his religion. I see the angle my classmate is taking, but I heavily disagree. The Bible calls its followers to help those in need, yes, but the Pastor certainly has other options of helping the sexual offenders besides housing them on the church's property. It's not as if disallowing them to live on the church's property means the Pastor is helpless and out of resources to offer them. For these reasons, I agree that the law that directly targeted the Pastor was unconstitutional, but it is my opinion that there is a better option for the community/members of the church than housing multiple sexual offenders in one location.
Post a Comment