I do not pretend to know whether all of Annunciation House’s efforts have complied with Texas state law. The two sides are locked in a heated dispute about that very question. But here’s what I do know: In the state’s zeal to close Annunciation House, its attorney general, Ken Paxton, is attacking the shelter’s religious rights.
Texas, like the federal government and 27 other states, has passed a religious freedom restoration act. Under the Texas version, which is very similar to its federal counterpart, “a government agency may not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion” unless that agency is advancing a “compelling government interest” and is using the “least restrictive means” of advancing that interest.
Paxton argues that closing Annunciation House won’t substantially burden its free exercise of religion. Why? Because according to Paxton, Annunciation House, which mainly serves the poor, doesn’t engage in many religious rituals. Here’s a quote from Paxton’s brief:
Annunciation House’s house director testified that Annunciation House (i) goes periods of “nine months, ten months” without offering Catholic Mass, (ii) does not offer confessions, baptisms, or communion, and (iii) makes “no” efforts to evangelize or convert its guests to any religion.
In other words, Annunciation House isn’t Catholic enough to earn Pope Paxton’s seal of approval.
This is absurd — and threatening to American civil liberties. First, it’s ridiculous to believe that service to refugees isn’t “free exercise” all by itself. In fact, serving the poor is one of the purest forms of religious service that exists. It’s mandated or endorsed in, by one count, more than 2,000 passages in Scripture. It’s also one of the most ancient manifestations of Christian service and identity.
The very idea that a state official would take it upon himself to judge a faith-based institution’s religiosity and authenticity is deeply problematic. It entangles the state in ecclesiastical affairs. Whenever public officials pass religious judgment on expressions of religious faith, it raises profound Establishment Clause concerns.
In addition, it’s bizarre to argue that closing Annunciation House is anywhere close to the least restrictive means of enforcing Texas’s immigration laws. If a court determines that any aspect of the shelter’s conduct violates Texas law and is not protected by the state’s religious freedom laws, it can issue an injunction against the conduct. Texas does not have to close the shelter to enforce compliance with state law.
