Mahoney v. Pelosi

    Less than a week ago today a lawsuit was filed by the Center for American Liberty on behalf of Rev. Patrick Mahoney against speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris. Patrick Mahoney is a 67 year old Presbytarian minister who has made a tradition out of holding a public prayer vigil outside of the U.S Capitol building in Washington D.C on good friday. He even held one of these vigils last year at this time and made accommodations as the pandemic presented safety concerns. However, in light of the events that took place at the Capitol on January 6th, in which violent protesters stormed the building, fencing has been placed around the perimeter of the building and much of the surrounding area has been labelled as ‘restricted’ in order to maintain the safety of the area. Thus, when Mahoney filed for a permit on February 2nd he was denied as the Capitol Hill police department claimed that the area in which he wanted to hold his vigil was part of the restricted zone and needed to remain unoccupied to maintain safety. The police informed Mahoney that he was free to hold the vigil on a sidewalk nearby but he insisted on holding it at the same location he has in the past. The Center for American Liberty is helping Mahoney present his case against Pelosi, Harris, and the Capitol police board as he believes the denial of his request to hold the vigil is a direct violation of his free exercise of religion. Mahoney believes that since there has not been any violent protests or insurrections since the January 6th incident there is no state interest in maintaining the fencing and restricted zones around the Capitol. He also claims that since he has had vigils on good Friday at the Capitol before and has even had them during the Covid-19 pandemic, he has the right to continue to freely exercise his religion in this manner.

This case presents us with an issue of free exercise as the salient point made by Mahoney is that he believes that his free exercise of religion is inhibited by the denial of the space to hold his vigil and that his religious obligation requires this practice. The question becomes whether or not free exercise of religion promises the right of public display on public property and if the Capitol police have reasonable grounds to deny Mahoney his tradition in light of security issues. This case is particularly interesting because of how unique it is, however there are still some precedents that can be related to the Mahoney case in a reasonable manner. Cases like those of Braunfeld v. Brown and O’Lone v. The Estate of Shabazz shows us that when the government has a compelling interest to burden the exercise of religion they are legally allowed to do so in most reasonable instances. The Mahoney case clearly presents a state interest as the main cause of the denial to hold the vigil is due to the security issues present surrounding the Capitol building. On the other hand precedents set like those in the case of Sherbert v. Verner claim that the state must have significant compelling interest to deny a person their right of free exercise when dealing with a key religious principle. Mahoney certainly believes that this recurring vigil is an obligation of his religious belief and the state is lacking compelling interest as violence like the type seen on January 6th has not recurred. 

I personally believe that the state and Capitol Hill police department is correct in denying Mahoney the area to perform his vigil this past good Friday. I understand that Mahoney has held this vigil previously, even during the start of the pandemic, but the state interest in maintaining the security of the Capitol in light of recent events justifies the limit on the free exercise of his religion. The Capitol Hill police also offered Mahoney the ability to perform the vigil on the nearby sidewalk but he refused claiming he needed to be closer to the building in the same spot he has held it in before. The government attempted to accommodate Mahoney as best as possible and the offering of a nearby location is reasonable considering the security interest that the state has. The precedents set in the cases I’ve mentioned previously show that a state interest can limit free exercise and only when a person's strong religious conviction is being inhibited can the state interest occasionally be ignored. Mahoney is not being denied the right to practice the obligation he feels he has to God, he is simply being told it cannot happen in the exact location he wishes due to a compelling state interest. The slippery slope must also be considered because if the state was to make this exception for Mahoney there is a possibility that other religious groups could attempt to hold events on ‘restricted’ grounds and pose a real security threat. I believe the free exercise of Mahoney was rightly limited in this situation as the state interest in maintaining the security of the Capitol, along with the minor limitation on his free exercise, the possibility of a slippery slope, and the precedents set before all culminate in justifying the limitation he was subjected to last Friday.