Abstract
An Orthodox Jewish family sued two New York City agencies that oversee the affordable housing lottery after being repeatedly denied, alleging that their family of eight have been religiously discriminated against. In the Manhattan federal court lawsuit, the couple, Chaim Katz and Chana Katz, argue that they were religiously discriminated against when they were denied two affordable housing opportunities in Manhattan’s Lower East Side in 2017. Their lawyer contends that the agencies rejected the family for having “too many members.” He argues the agencies should never have denied housing because the Katz’s desire is rooted to their deep-seated Orthodox Jewish beliefs. The plaintiffs implore the court to declare that they were unlawfully discriminated against, in addition to other damages. Along with several other companies, New York City Housing Preservation & Development and The New York City Housing Development Corporation, were named as the defendants. While the Constitution prioritizes civil liberty, we question whether or not the Katz family is protected by the 1st Amendment. This piece examines whether or not the Free Exercise Clause, along with other precedents, can be effectively applied in the defense of the family.
Free Exercise Clause
The origins of the Free Exercise Clause trace back to the drafting of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was proposed by James Madison and adopted by Congress in 1789. The clause was influenced by a desire to safeguard religious freedom, stemming from experiences of religious persecution in Europe and early colonial America. Many of the early American settlers came seeking religious freedom, and the framers of the Constitution sought to protect this fundamental right. The exact wording of the Free Exercise Clause was influenced by various state declarations of rights and bills of rights, as well as philosophical ideas about individual rights and liberties. Over time, interpretations and applications of the Free Exercise Clause have evolved through court decisions. Today, there is a well-developed body of law and controlling legal precedent that defines the scope of this important cause in modern times.
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc v. Comer
In this recent case, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether a state could deny a church participation in a state program providing grants to resurface playgrounds based solely on its religious status. Trinity Lutheran Church applied for a grant to resurface its playground, but the state of Missouri denied the application citing a provision in the state constitution prohibiting public funds from going to religious organizations. The Court ruled in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church, holding that the state’s denial of the grant solely because of the church’s religious identity violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court found that the state’s policy discriminated against the church and its members based upon their religious status, and that this discrimination was not justified by a compelling governmental interest. The decision has significant implications for the application of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause in cases involving public funding and religious institutions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision favoring Trinity Lutheran Church strongly reinforces the family’s stance. Despite its recent conclusion, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer marks a significant victory for religious freedom in the United States. This perspective aligns with an originalist interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, which I find compelling. It reflects a brilliant understanding of the First Amendment, crafted by insightful individuals wary of centralized government power, from which they fought for their liberty. The Supreme Court’s position in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church, serves as an ample precedent in support of the family. While a counter-argument might suggest that Thomas Jefferson believed the government could restrict religion in certain circumstances, such as when it posed a threat to public safety, it is important to note that Jefferson only advocated for such restrictions when there was a genuine risk to public well-being. From my perspective, and I believe many would agree, an Orthodox Jewish family adhering to their faith poses no threat to public safety. Please feel free to share your thoughts on whether you agree or disagree with my analysis. I welcome all criticisms and feedback and look forward to hearing your perspectives.
References
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/orthodox-jewish-couple-alleges-nyc-housing-discrimin ation-over-size-of-their-family/2984907/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf
2 comments:
Even though they view the large size of their family as religiously required, the family should not be able to participate in the housing program because the law is in place to promote public safety. If it is an apartment building, there may be limits on capacity in case of an emergency like a fire. Further, I don't think this law specifically discriminates against the family based on religion, it discriminates against all large families. I do like your example of Trinity Church, which sets a precedent for religious freedom, but I don't think the two are comparable because of the different levels of risk involved in the situations.
I think the housing agencies are well within their right do have thresholds in place for how many tenants is too many tenants. I don't think its fair for certain people to act out of accordance with the the law because they think they have some divine warrant. The truth is that eight people is a perfectly legitimate standard for any housing agency to set, and so long as their not doing it for the explicit purposes of discriminating against religious folk, and its a standard that they equally apply under the law, than they should be allowed to make these decisions without the threat of litigation.
Post a Comment