Woman Faces 12 Years in Prison for Wire Fraud and Forced Labor. Does Her Right to Freedom of Exercise Acquit Her?

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.