Is Going to Church Unconstitutional? Erie v. Hunter

     In March of 2022, a case arose to a Louisiana Federal District Court in which a Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment rights of the Constitution, under the Establishment Clause, were violated when he was forced to attend a Christian service. Plaintiff is a patient who was committed by court order to reside under the care of Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System (ELMHS), a state-run mental health facility in Jacksonville, Louisiana. Defendant, Nancy Hunter, is a psychiatric aide at the ELMHS. Plaintiff is currently housed at ELMHS’s Secure Forensic Facility (SFF)  in which his actions are restricted by ELMHS employees. The consequences of disobeying an order of an employee results in a write-up, a loss of privileges, and decreased freedoms. On the morning of Saturday, January 9, 2021, Plaintiff was notified by Hunter that all residents in the SFF would be required to attend a religious service in the recreational

center. Plaintiff promptly responded that he did not want to go in which Hunter replied stating that “she was going to get a guard and force everyone to go” because “she was the only aid on the ward so she could not leave anyone in their room”. Due to the fact that Plaintiff was under the threat of a forced compulsory action and was afraid of being written up more or having a punishment, he attended the Christian religious service that lasted about one hour. 

From here, Plaintiff immediately reported the events to his attorney who later reported the events to ELMHS’s Chief Officer. Plaintiff was required to meet with SFF’s director, where he was given the results of ELMHS’s investigation of the matter. The results stated that Plaintiff was “indeed, forced to attend a religious service” and that ELMHS “was going to re-educate the staff and that the staff could not force someone to go to a church function”. Although ELMHS admitted to being wrong, Plaintiff still pursued his First Amendment claim against Hunter in her individual capacity only. Plaintiff believes this forced attendance to a religious service violated his First Amendment right to be free from state action advancing and prescribing religious beliefs and expressions. As a result, Hunter seeks dismissal of these claims in which she should be shielded from the liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity because her conduct in this situation was not clearly unlawful. With the facts of the case, was Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to be free from state action advancing and prescribing a religion violated by Hunter in which she forced Plaintiff to be present during a religious service?

The Louisiana Federal District Court favored Plaintiff in stating Hunter’s claim for qualified immunity is inapplicable. The specific issue to be looked at in this case is whether Plaintiff’s rights were violated under the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court has priorly stated that, “the government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” (Lee v. Weisman) Here, due to the fact that Hunter was an agent of the state of Louisiana and that she forced him to attend a one-hour Christian service against his protests, the Court claims that these reasonings make up the Establishment Clause’s prohibition against state action coercing a person to participate in religion. Therefore, the Court is sure that Plaintiff’s right to be free from forced attendance at a religious service was established at the time of the violation. 

In terms of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lee v. Weisman, the Court ruling here was consistent. The Supreme Court ruled in Lee v. Weisman that having a member of the clergy announce a prayer at a public high school graduation violated the Establishment Clause. In the case present here, the Louisiana Federal District Court ruled that a state agent forcing one to go to a religious service also violates the Establishment Clause. In those two cases, the legal interpretation of the Establishment Clause is that it prohibits the government from establishing, advancing, or prescribing a religion. From that viewpoint, I agree. I believe the goal of the Establishment Clause is to create a fine line between church and state and the entanglement of religion within the government. This case highlights the consistency within the Court’s ruling in which it strives to create that fine line. With the logistics of the case, I think the main reason it was termed an “establishment” was due to the fact that ELMHS is a state-funded organization with state-funded employees, therefore by Hunter forcing her religion upon Plaintiff, it was viewed as the state advancing her individual religion. In addition, I believe that requiring all residents in the SFF to attend a religious service simply because she was the only aid on the ward is unjustified. It is ELMHS’s responsibility to ensure they have the proper staffing when need be, and due to the fact that all residents had to attend the service due to poor staffing, the consequences should not fall onto the residents. The Plaintiff stated that if he did not attend, he would be in contention for a write up or substantial punishment, leaving him no choice but to attend. All in all, what do you think? Is forcing one who resides in a state-funded organization to attend a religious service a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Citations

Case: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/louisiana/lamdce/3:2021cv00267/59056/13/0.pdf?ts=1648126048

Lee v. Weisman: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lee-v-Weisman 

ELMHS: https://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/directory/detail/1812/catid/169 

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/18/1047085626/supreme-court-police-qualified-immunity-cases#:~:text=Qualified%20immunity%20refers%20to%20a,accused%20of%20violating%20constitutional%20rights.