Sunday, April 17, 2022

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?

7 comments:

  1. I think this is definitely a violation of the Establishment Clause. Considering that it is a state sponsored program, there can be no requirement to attend religious services. Agreeing with Max, there is clearly a less restrictive means to accomplish allowing other individuals to attend if they want to. Furthermore, the state themselves admitted to wrongdoing in this example, indicating the obvious violation. Ultimately, they should allow religion but not require or interfere with it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that the ward is at fault here and that this is a violation of the Establishment Clause. At first, I was in between because I was thinking about how there could potentially be compelling state interest to bring the individual to the service to ensure safety for all, but I think this could have been completely avoided. This is a state institution and there should not be an instance where an individual is being forced to attend a religious service. I think the ward should have been more prepared beforehand to make sure this didn't happen. Because of the failure, I agree and believe this is a violation. I also agree with the previous comments that mention how there could have been less restrictive means, so it didn't reach this point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree here. This is a clear violation of the establishment clause. Just because someone is in an institution does not mean that the first amendment no longer applies to them. It is also important to note that the state has a responsibility to maintain the necessary amount of employees needed to watch all subjects. The state cannot force someone to attend religious services simply because they did not hire the right amount of employees. The state has a responsibility to run the institution correctly. Also, it should not be left to state interpretation to decide whether or or not the subject would be affected by attending church services. Brings up a free exercise issue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I mean, Hunter even admitted they were in the wrong, as well as the institution, so this is definitely a violation of the Constitution. This is a state-funded institution, and there should have been multiple event for the plaintiff to choose from. This reminds me of an earlier blog post where a prisoner argued that they were forced to go to a religious facility, but this was technically not the case because the inmate could have chosen to stay in prison. In this case, the plaintiff was only given one option and this was to attend the service.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a very interesting case. I agree that Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated because he was forced to attend the service. However, I do feel bad for the chief who was only trying to do her job in protecting the patients at the institution since she was not allowed to leave them alone. In this sense, it is a bit tricky because she felt that she was protecting him by violating his First Amendment Rights.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with your analysis of the case. The key facts for me are that ELMHS is a state-funded organization with state-funded employees and therefore, any forcing of religion is a direct violation of the establishment clause. When taking the Lemon Test into account, there are many opportunities for a less restrictive means to be achieved. Whether it be hiring an extra employee or shifting a schedule around. The bottom line is that no one should be forced into practicing a religion, especially by the state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is definitely an interesting case but I, along with other commenters, agree with your assessment. This is a government funded organization and is therefore a direct violation of the Establishment Clause. This is situation in which he was being forced to attend this service and had no choice. The lack of voice between multiple options becomes unconstitutional because it is a clear establishment of Religion.

    ReplyDelete