Defining the Limits of Religious-Services Clauses on Public Lands

Fascinating decision (the Lipan-Apache Native American Church here lost the case in the 5th Circuit this week):

Beyond the Sanctuary: Defining the Limits of Texas’s Religious-Services Clause on Public Lands: 5th Cir. | CaseMine:

Gary Perez and Matilde Torres—leaders in the Lipan-Apache Native American Church—challenged the City’s $7.75 million renovation of Brackenridge Park, alleging the work would destroy the “spiritual ecology” of their sacred riverbend by removing heritage cypress trees and deterring the migratory cormorants central to their creation story…

…Guideposts for Native and minority faith claims: The decision elevates the evidentiary threshold for showing a substantial burden where the state acts on its own land. Litigants must document direct, site-specific prohibitions rather than ecological or aesthetic degradation alone…

…Texas’s pandemic-era Religious-Services Clause, while “absolute and categorical,” is geographically—and now judicially—confined; policy makers retain authority to manage parks, rivers, and historic landmarks even when such management displeases worshippers…

I wonder how the decision would have fallen had this been in a “Christian” (under Texas-understanding) context…

More on the case here from the Baptist Standard.

Leave a Reply