98 F.4th 586
5th Cir.2024Background
- Gary Perez and Matilde Torres, members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church, alleged San Antonio’s Brackenridge Park development plan prevents required religious ceremonies due to tree removal and anti-bird-nesting measures.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the First Amendment, Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA), and Texas Constitution, requiring (1) access for worship, (2) minimizing tree removal, and (3) allowing cormorant nesting.
- The district court granted group access for religious ceremonies but denied injunction against tree removal and bird deterrence, finding no substantial burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise by those acts.
- Plaintiffs appealed, seeking emergency injunction pending appeal to stop tree removal and rookery measures, arguing likelihood of success on the merits.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court; found access claims moot (as the City removed fencing and allowed worship), and denied further injunctive relief, ruling plaintiffs did not show a substantial burden or likelihood of success.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access to Sacred Area for Worship | City’s closure and fencing blocks religious worship. | City has restored access, rendering the claim moot. | Claim moot; City removed barriers, ceremonies allowed. |
| Tree Removal and Bird Deterrence as Substantial Burden | Plan irreparably destroys spiritual ecology needed for worship. | Actions are necessary for safety and public health; not a substantial burden. | No substantial burden shown; relief denied. |
| Strict Scrutiny under TRFRA/Texas Constitution | City’s actions are not least restrictive means, not justified. | Compelling interest in public health; plans are least restrictive. | City’s interests compelling; actions narrowly tailored. |
| Emergency Injunctive Relief | Likely to succeed; irreparable harm to religion. | No likelihood of success; plans justified and lawful. | No likelihood of success; injunction denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of Luke Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (discussing strict scrutiny in Free Exercise Clause cases)
- Employment Div., Dep't of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (explains when neutral, generally applicable laws are subject to strict scrutiny for religious claims)
- Barr v. City of Sinton, 295 S.W.3d 287 (lays out Texas’s approach to substantial burden under TRFRA)
- Merced v. Kasson, 577 F.3d 578 (details burden-shifting under TRFRA and the requirement of strict scrutiny)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (government use of its own land and religious exercise)
- Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (describes mootness doctrine in federal litigation)