City Walk et al v. City of Tallahassee

 City Walk Urban Mission ministry and homeless shelter was told to stop operating and expanding by state officials due to the fact it was decided the shelter was a “private nuisance.” The officials said City Walk would be charged $250 each day the shelter remained open. The director of City Walk, Renee Miller, continued to keep the shelter open and sued the city and county, arguing the order from the officials was in violation of their First Amendment Rights under the Free Exercise Clause. Miller’s claims involve the religious mission of the ministry, as it is within the obligations of Christianity to assist those in need, including and especially the sick and homeless. Her attorney stated, “Christ preaches charity and good works to the less fortunate, and that’s what these folks do as a matter of faith. It’s not just a private thing for their own benefit or even for the benefit of their congregation, but the idea is that they’re an example for the community. That’s the expressive part.” It was also stated that free speech is violated. In terms of the “public nuisance,” the government explained that the charity of people like the homeless can lead to more crime and poorer property values in the area. Tallahassee’s Development Review Committee rejected the application for the shelter to continue to stay open without these fines. Miller and the church have appealed this decision.

This case begs the question; is it Constitutional for state officials to infringe upon Miller’s religious obligations to assist the homeless due to a greater state interest?

The use of the Sherbert Test (after Sherbert v. Verner), is the best way to assess the government order to stop housing the homeless because the state of Florida has its own Religious Freedom Restoration Act, where it specifically states when the government can and cannot burden one’s exercise of religion. Much like the three-part Sherbert Test, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that there must be a compelling state interest and there must not be less restrictive means to the government action.

In what the case the Sherbert Test is derived from, Sherbert v. Verner, a Seventh-day Adventist was fired upon her employers finding out her religion did not allow her to work on Saturdays. The Supreme Court Justices assessed that significant burdens upon people practicing their religion is unconstitutional, and that compelling state interest is important when it comes to religious freedom. There was no compelling state interest to not give Sherbert unemployment, and there were less restrictive means, so Sherbert won the case fairly. 

To apply the Sherbert Test to the City Walk case, three questions must be asked. Firstly, does this law impose a substantial burden on free exercise? Yes. Miller claims it is within her duties on her journey with Christ to help those in need. In fact, she even is quoted saying “This is obedience to God…He’s told me to do it, and until he tells me to stop, I will not stop.” The rules infringed upon City Walk make it so Miller is fined for practicing her religion properly. These fines are substantial and have been adding up; the burden is substantial and discriminatory towards Miller’s religious mission. Secondly, is there a compelling state interest for the policy? Yes. One could understand that homelessness often does come with crime and a drop in property value in the area, but the compelling state interest could absolutely be achieved through less restrictive means. This is the third and final assessment in the Sherbert Test. Rather than shutting the shelters down, government action could rather involve stricter guidelines for those staying at the shelter to help reduce crime and property value decrease. Sacrificing Miller’s ability to practice her religion when there are other options to address the state interest is unconstitutional.

A modern case that is extremely similar to City Walk et al v. City of Tallahassee is United States of American v. Warren, where it was within Dr. Scott Warren’s religious obligation to provide resources to migrants crossing the border. He would leave these potentially life-saving resources at a drop sight, and was eventually arrested for “Abandonment of Property.” Warren claimed this arrest went against his First Amendment Rights and was eventually acquitted in federal court. To apply the Sherbert Test to this case, one can conclude the decision to acquit Warren was the correct one. His ability to practice his religion was infringed upon, there was a state interest to not have property abandonment, but, as the court ultimately concluded, this interest was not very compelling, as the claimed need to protect “the pristine state of the wildlife refuge” (as the state argued) was no reason to restrict Warren from helping those in need on the basis of his religious purpose.

The Sherbert Test is the fairest way to assess Freedom of Religion and Free Speech cases. City Walk should be able to keep their shelter open due to their religious mission. Allowing Miller to practice her religion can be accommodated by using less restrictive means in trying to keep crime to a minimum. Compelling state interests are an important part of law-making, but if accommodations can be made to make people’s First Amendment rights the standard, these actions should certainly be taken.