Ban On Cockfighting Does Not Violate Pastor's Free Exercise Rights

 In Plumbar v. Landry, (MD LA, Aug. 26, 2021), a Louisiana federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to Louisiana's ban on cockfighting. Plaintiff who challenged the law was pastor of Holy Fight Ministries, a church that believes cockfighting is an essential part of its faith.  The court held that the ban is a neutral, generally applicable statute whose purpose is to prevent animal cruelty.

Cockfighting Ban Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

 In Hinds v. State of Texas,(TX App., June 24, 2021), a Texas state appellate court rejected petitioner's argument that the state's ban on cockfighting and on training animals for cockfighting violates the Establishment Clause. Petitioner, who was convicted of violating Texas Penal Code §42.105, according to the court, argued that:

paganism is a “nature worshiping religion” and that “animal rights laws are a clandestinely designed effort to institute laws respecting the establishment of the Pagan religion and animal worship.

Court Rejects Church's Claim That Its Free Exercise Rights Include Cockfighting

In Plumbar v. Perrilloux, (MD LA, July 13, 2020), a Louisiana federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Louisiana's statute that bans cockfighting.  Members of Holy Fight Ministries claim that cockfighting is an integral and essential part of their religious faith. In denying the injunction, the court said in part:

Defendants have provided satisfactory evidence to show that the state has a compelling interest in enacting a law banning cockfighting and because the evidence casts doubt upon the type of institution operated by Plaintiffs. In other words, the evidence suggests that the cockfighting activities were more commercial in nature than a bona fide religious ritual.

Minister Challenges Louisiana Cockfighting Ban

Suit was filed last week in a Louisiana federal district court by Holy Fight Ministries and its minister claiming that Louisiana's ban on cockfighting violates their federal and state free exercise rights as well as the Establishment Clause. The complaint (full text) in Plumbar v. Landry, (MD LA, filed 6/12/2020), alleges in part:

Reverend Plumbar, Holy Fight Ministries and its congregation hold the sincere religious belief that cockfighting represents that while they strive for CHRIST, they have a necessary symbolic physical manifestation, an epiphany through the fighting cock, a religious mandate of the struggle between good and evil, a struggle for life or death for the Salvation of the soul, and thus cockfighting is an integral and essential part of their religious faith.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Court Rejects Free Exercise Defense To Federal Cockfighting Conviction

In United States v. Olney, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19947 (ED WA, Feb. 18, 2016), a Washington federal district court, after a bench trial, convicted Shane Scott Olney of sponsoring an Unlawful Animal Fighting Venture in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1). The court rejected defendant's claim

that as a baptized Catholic, and an enrolled member of the Yakama Nation, he "has a sincerely held religious belief that the Holy Scriptures quoted in Genesis 1:26-28 ... entitles him to rule over his fighting roosters, to breed them, exhibit them, train them, and to present them for gamecock fighting."....

The court explained:

Aside from the fact that the conduct Defendant claims to be protected is not the conduct for which he was tried and convicted, the Court finds the federal statute at issue does not unconstitutionally encroach upon his First Amendment rights....

The Court finds that the statute at issue is a neutral law of general applicability and thus, it is reviewed for a rational basis.... Here, the statute is related to prevention of cruelty to animals and thus, survives rational basis review.