Janny v. Gamez

In 2015, Mark Janny violated his parole and consequently was sent by his parole officer to live at the Denver Rescue Mission, a homeless shelter in Colorado. However, this Mission participated in a program called "Steps for Success", a Christian-based program that required its residents to participate in mandatory prayer, bible study, and church attendance. Janny, an atheist, objected to these terms and his parole officer told him that he could either go to this place or back to jail. Less than a week later, the Mission kicked Janny out, and he returned to jail. He quickly sued his parole officer for violating his First Amendment rights and for state-endorsed coercion per the Establishment Clause. A federal court ruled against him, only for that decision to be reversed by the federal district court. While it is unclear whether or not this case is going to the Supreme Court, it is still an interesting situation to examine. The main questions here are 1. Was Janny's freedom of religion violated by sending him to this program, and 2. Did the state aid an establishment of religion when it sent Janny to the Mission? 

While this appears to be a very open-and-shut case, the question remains as to why the district court ruled against Janny. The documents around the decision say that the court made use of the Lemon test, as established in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The test is often used as a guideline in determining violations of Establishment Clause. It says that there must be a secular purpose to the law, a primary effect that neither advances nor prohibits religion, and the law must avoid excessive entanglement between government and religion. I'm going to list a few of the arguments of the district court concerning Janny and why they ruled against him. Something important to note is that these charges are not passively laid at the feet of the government to defend against. Rather, this is something Janny had to prove by the opinion of the court. Something also to note is that Janny had previously violated his parole, and thus, with the help of his parole officer, had to find somewhere else to live, which ended up being the Mission.

When it comes to the issue of secular purpose, the court noted that Janny did not have any evidence to prove that his placement there was religiously motivated. While some may think the decision to place him there was enough of a reason, the court used precedence from the case Am. Atheists Inc. v. Davenport, where it was said that, "We will not lightly attribute unconstitutional motives to the government, particularly where we can discern a plausible secular purpose." This quote can be found here, on page 6. The secular purpose, in the court's opinion, was Janny's rehabilitation. To that extent, I agree. This was Janny's second chance at being on parole, and so his parole officer was clearly looking for somewhere else to put him. On the issue of primary effect, the court ruled that this was giving him a place to fulfill his parole requirements, rather than to coerce him into any religious faith. This too, I agree with. It fits with the secular purpose that the court established. 

My main issue with this decision is when the court said, on the condition of effect, that "there is no objective evidence that [Janny] was required to participate in any religious programming in order to stay there", which can also be found here on page 6. I disagree with this assessment because the housing within the Mission mandated that Janny participate in the "Steps to Success" program in order to stay. This infringed upon his religious freedom. I do not believe this was voluntary on Janny's part to attend this place despite the state's secular purpose when it put him there. I believe it is coercion. Forcing someone choose between violating their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and returning to jail is an inherently lopsided choice. The court refuted excessive entanglement because Janny had not shown proof that the state or his parole officer had had a relationship with the Christian Mission beforehand and planned to send him there.

Lastly, the court handily dismissed the issue of Janny's free exercise of religion because he did not provide any proof or authority on the idea that the parole officer infringed upon his rights by making him live in a facility that has religious programming. I disagree with this assessment because, whether that parole officer knew it or not, the "Steps to Success" program was a religious organization, and with Janny's objections as an atheist, it most certainly violated his religious freedoms to attend these events. This case was later overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which determined that Janny was subject to religious coercion. 

I bring the federal district ruling up because it provides a counterpoint to what we may think of this case on the surface. Janny did violate the rules of his parole initially, and that was what got him sent to the Christian Mission, as opposed to jail. However, the Mission is religious in nature, and if someone wanted to stay there, that person would have had to participate in their specific religious activities, regardless of any personal belief. Despite giving Janny a choice to attend either the Christian Mission or the jail, this choice violated his religious convictions. It is coercive because of its nature, since it is inherently preferential to stay out of jail. In my concluded opinion, the State coerced Janny into attending a religious program at the Denver Rescue Mission, and the State violated Janny's religious freedoms by the Christian Mission requiring his participation despite his vocal atheism.