In 2019 Tracie Dickey was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years in prison for forced labor of church members and defrauding hotels. Dickey appointed herself as bishop of Deliverance Tabernacle Ministries, which has branches in Pennsylvania, Florida, and North Carolina, and is attempting to use her religious beliefs as a defense for her actions. According to the Justice Department press release, Dickey ran a hotel scheme in which she forced church members to work at various hotels, gaining over 66,000 dollars in fraudulent earnings and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars that were earned by her church members. According to the DOJ, Dickey emotionally and physically abused her members and forced them to follow her rules. Several of her victims testified that Tracie Dickey starved them, humiliated them, threatened their families, and even sent them into homelessness if they didn't abide by her rules.
Tracie Dickey was arrested on counts of wire fraud and forced labor and argued that these charges should be dropped as her actions were protected under the First Amendment and "ministerial exception." Her argument is based on the foundation that because she is a leader of a religious organization that her treatment and management are protected under her First Amendment right to freedom of exercise.
An important precedent for this is the case of United States v. Ballard. This case involves a religious organization that allegedly used false pretenses to convince people to join and fund their organization. They were indicted on counts of mail fraud but argued that due to their religious beliefs, which include payment in turn for religious acts, they couldn't be charged due to their First Amendment right. The crucial aspect of this case is that the Court can't determine the validity or rationality of their beliefs but whether or not the alleged actions were committed in good faith. They also make the important distinction between the freedom to act and the freedom to believe. Because there is no way to prove one's religious beliefs, the Court took into account the manner that their actions were committed. Relating to the case of Tracie Dickey, the Court can't determine whether the beliefs she held were rational or valid but can evaluate the intention behind her actions. In other words, the Court can't judge or question her beliefs but whether or not the intention behind them was sincere. Dickey also tried to cite "ministerial exception" as part of her defense, but it doesn't apply to this case. Ministerial exception refers to the protection surrounding religious organizations hiring and firing process and the way they manage their employees. In this case, the terms of employment were not called into question, nor were the guidelines she used to retain and dismiss members. She is being indicted on forced labor and wire fraud, both allegations that have nothing to do with membership standards.
This begs the question, does Tracie Dicky's First Amendment right to freedom of exercise protect her from being criminally charged for the manner she chose to run her congregation?
I believe that it does not. Tracie Dicky was not acting in good faith. She was forcing the people of her congregation to work for her and defraud hotels while she reaped the benefits. She coerced members into these acts by threatening their livelihood and safety so she could make a profit. She may hold that it is her belief to exercise her religion in this manner, and while that can't be questioned, according to United States v. Ballard, the intention behind her actions can be questioned. There is no doubt that her intention was to make money, as proven by the testimony of her past members and the continued physical and mental abuse. No person acting in good faith threatens their members' families, forces them into homeless, starves them, and takes their money against their will. Her freedom to exercise allows her to believe and practice her beliefs as long as those actions are acted out in good faith. Here her beliefs aren't being restricted; instead, the manner that she conducted her religious organization was fraudulent and harmful.
In other cases, we have looked at where religious freedom of exercise conflicts with the law; often, a compelling state interest overrides that right. In this case, there is a state interest in preventing fraud, forced labor, forced homelessness, starvation, and coercion which is more compelling than Ms. Dicky's beliefs. The harmful intention of her actions and the compelling state interest to prevent fraud provide sufficient proof that Tracie Dicky's first amendment right to freedom of exercise does not protect her against these crimes.
7 comments:
Great post! I agree with you that this is not a violation of her First Amendment rights. While her beliefs may have been valid, they do not override the abuse she put the members of her church through. There is a compelling state interest to protect citizens from these abuses, and it is clear her intent was not sincere as she was profiting off of these members while overworking them and treating them poorly.
I think you did a good job explaining the case and I agree with your outcome. I believe this is one of those cases you have to look at and decide how far the line go's in terms of can you break the law due to your religious beliefs. I agree she believed these ideas sincerely but there is no way you can allow her to put people through the abuse she just because of her beliefs. Overall great post and I think you did a good job highlighting major issues in this case.
As has been established for a century-and-a-half in free exercise case law (see Reynolds v United States), religious convictions and religious actions are entirely different things. There is no question that fraud and forced labor are incredibly serious crimes, crimes that Dickey knowingly committed. To allow Dickey's crimes to go unpunished simply because she believed that her actions were religiously justified would set the abhorrent precedent that all actions motivated by spiritual convictions trump the laws of the land.
This was really interesting to read! I agree with you that her rights were not violated because her intention was not sincere. As well, the coercion aspect demonstrates that these actions are not accepted throughout the congregation therefore have nothing to do with religious reasoning. She abused her power within the congregation on the grounds of religion.
I completely agree with you, that this is not a violation of her First Amendment rights. She completely used and abused her power and the position she held in the church along with in the lives of the people within the congregation. It seems as though she should not be the one complaining about the violation of rights seeing as how she utilized fraudulent means and forced labor to get what she wanted, and may I also add that she was the only one in this situation that was set up to profit. She clearly acted with intent and her motivations were obvious.
I also think that there is no violation of the First Amendment right in this case. In addition to this, compelling government interests are regulations that are very important to the protection of public health and safety. This includes the regulation of violent crime, the requirements of national security, military necessity, and respect for fundamental rights. In this case, it was stated that Dickey ran a "hotel scheme in which she forced church members to work at various hotels, gaining over 66,000 dollars in fraudulent earnings and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars that were earned by her church members". In addition to this, it was stated that "Dickey emotionally and physically abused her members and forced them to follow her rules and treatment including starving, humiliating, threatening, and even sent them into homelessness if they didn't abide by her rules". None of this should be legal or allowed.
Nice job! I completely agree with you here, and I think it is highly evident that Dickey was not acting in good faith. I recall discussing other cases where we evaluated whether or not an individual's religious convictions would allow them to be above the law, and generally, they do not. In this case specifically, there is absolutely a compelling state interest in prosecuting Dickey because she was not acting in good faith and broke multiple laws at the expense of other individuals.
Post a Comment