115 F.4th 422
5th Cir.2024Background
- Plaintiffs Gary Perez and Matilde Torres, members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church, claim that a specific area of Brackenridge Park in San Antonio, Texas, is sacred and essential for their religious ceremonies.
- The City of San Antonio plans to renovate the park, including tree removal and bird deterrence measures, which plaintiffs argue would destroy the site's "spiritual ecology" vital to their religious exercise.
- Plaintiffs sued under the First Amendment, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA), and the Texas Constitution, seeking access to the sacred area and preservation of its natural elements.
- The district court granted limited relief, allowing plaintiffs access for group ceremonies but permitting the City's tree removal and bird deterrence due to compelling public health and safety interests.
- The Fifth Circuit initially affirmed, but on rehearing, withdrew its opinion and certified a question to the Texas Supreme Court regarding the scope of Article I, Section 6-a of the Texas Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the City’s plan burden free exercise of religion? | Yes; excluding access and disrupting ecology burdens religious practice. | No; actions are for public health and safety, not targeted at religion. | Remains open pending state law clarification |
| Does TRFRA protect plaintiffs from the City’s actions? | Yes; tree removal and bird deterrence substantially burden religion. | No; City's interests outweigh, actions justified under TRFRA. | Not decided on merits; certification issued |
| Scope of Article I, § 6-a of Texas Constitution | Provides categorical bar against any restriction on religious services. | Allows regulation for compelling governmental interests (strict scrutiny). | Certified to Texas Supreme Court |
| Injunctive relief against tree removal and bird deterrence | Needed to prevent irreparable harm to religious practice/ecology. | Would impede important public improvements and health/safety. | District court permitted City's actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. City of San Antonio, 98 F.4th 586 (5th Cir. 2024) (original panel decision affirming district court, now withdrawn)
- Barr v. City of Sinton, 295 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. 2009) (discussing limits on religious conduct rights under Texas Constitution)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard for certifying questions to state supreme courts)