Court Rejects Religious and Other Challenges To Takeover Of Abandoned Homes

Honkala v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,  (ED PA, Jan. 31, 2022) involves an unsuccessful challenge to the Philadelphia Housing Authority's (PHA) attempted eviction of homeless families who took over abandoned vacant housing owned by PHA.  A community activist and the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign staged a series of such takeovers.  Among the challenges raised by plaintiffs were religious freedom claims under RFRA and RLUIPA. The court explains:

[Plaintiffs assert] they are “currently possessed of ethical, moral, humanitarian and/or religious belief(s) and action(s), including but not limited to those rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition of caring for the least and most needy amongst us, which federal law therefore respects and identifies as a ‘religious belief’ pursuant to the definition thereof as set forth in 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-5.”... Plaintiffs allege that their work “building and/or repairing and/or converting real property, such as the public housing property at issue…is therefore considered a ‘religious exercise,’ and Defendants are unable to satisfy their “burden of proving that eviction is the least restrictive means of fostering any compelling interest it may otherwise invoke.....

The Pennsylvania federal district court rejected plaintiffs' RFRA claim because RFRA applies only to actions of the federal government and not to that of states and municipalities.  While PHA holds the property in trust for HUD, HUD did not cause their injuries.  The court also rejected plaintiffs" RLUIPA claim because the claim does not involve a zoning issue and because plaintiffs have no property interest in the house.  The court additionally rejected several other legal theories put forward by plaintiffs, but said in part:

As a means of focusing attention on governmental failure to make effective use of assets available to reduce homelessness, this action succeeds. And if principles of natural law provided the controlling standard, Plaintiffs would have a compelling moral argument: “In cases of need, all things are common property, so there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.2, Question 66, Article 7. But civil law is not designed to answer such ultimate moral questions.

Alabama Supreme Court Concurrence Relies On Natural Law Argument To Define Fetus as A "Child"

In a blog post yesterday, Americans United called attention to the concurring opinion of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore in Ex parte Hicks, (AL Sup. Ct., April 18, 2014). In the case, in an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld the conviction of Sarah Janie Hicks for ingesting cocaine while pregnant, concluding that "the use of the word 'child' in the chemical-endangerment statute includes all children, born and unborn." Justice Parker's majority opinion focused mainly on legislative intent.  Chief Justice Moore's concurrence, however, made a broader natural law argument, rooted in language from the Declaration of Independence.  He wrote in part:

[A]s stated by James Wilson, one of the first Justices on the United States Supreme Court: "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine." ***

 Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, states have an obligation to provide to unborn children at any stage of their development the same legal protection from injury and death they provide to persons already born. Because a human life with a full genetic endowment comes into existence at the moment of conception, the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" encompasses the moment of conception. Legal recognition of the unborn as members of the human family derives ultimately from the laws of nature and of nature's God, Who created human life in His image and protected it with the commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Therefore, the interpretation of the word "child" in Alabama's chemical-endangerment statute, § 26-15-3.2, Ala. Code 1975, to include all human beings from the moment of conception is fully consistent with these first principles regarding life and law.