Case 3:21-cv-00173-KC Document 34-1 Filed 08/12/21 Page 1 of 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil Action No. EP-21-cv-173-KC Plaintiff, v. STATE OF TEXAS; and GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Defendants. BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY Eric C. Rassbach Texas Bar No. 24013375 (admitted pro hac vice) Lori H. Windham (admitted pro hac vice) D.C. Bar No. 501838 The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 1919 Penn Ave. NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 955-0095 Fax: (202) 955-0090 [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley Case 3:21-cv-00173-KC Document 34-1 Filed 08/12/21 Page 2 of 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................... iii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS .............................................................................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................3 ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................9 I. The Order’s violation of religious liberty is not in the public interest. ......................................................................................... 10 A. The Governor’s Order violates the Free Exercise Clause. ................ 10 1. The Order is not neutral. ............................................................... 11 2. The Order is not generally applicable. ......................................... 12 3. The Order cannot withstand strict scrutiny. ............................... 13 B. Texas has no legitimate interest in violating state law. .................. 15 II. The United States’ Supremacy Clause arguments are also more likely to succeed because they vindicate the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. .............................. 16 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................... 20 ii Case 3:21-cv-00173-KC Document 34-1 Filed 08/12/21 Page 3 of 24 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Ams. United for Separation of Church & State v. City of Grand Rapids, 922 F.2d 303 (6th Cir. 1990) ................................................................ 10 Arnold v. Barbers Hill Indep. Sch. Dist., 479 F. Supp. 3d 511 (S.D. Tex. 2020) .................................................... 9 Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984) .............................................................................. 18 Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rts. Org., 441 U.S. 600 (1979) .............................................................................. 17 Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020) .................................................................... 17, 18 Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Mack, No. 21-20279, 2021 WL 2887861 (5th Cir. July 9, 2021) ................ 9-10 Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) .............................................................. 11, 12, 13 Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) .............................................................................. 13 Kite v. Marshall, 454 F. Supp. 1347 (S.D. Tex. 1978) ....................................................... 9 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado C.R. Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) .......................................................................... 11 Merced v. Kasson, 577 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 2009) ................................................................ 16 Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2017) .................................................................. 9 iii Case 3:21-cv-00173-KC Document 34-1 Filed 08/12/21 Page 4 of 24 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ................................................................................ 9 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) ................................................................................ 15 Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) .......................................................................... 12 Texas v. United States, No. 6:21-CV-00003, 2021 WL 2096669 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2021) ..................................................................................................... 10 Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb.................................................................................... 10 Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 110.003 et seq. .................................................. 10, 16 Other Authorities Cathechism of the Catholic Church § 2241 ............................................... 4 Pope Francis, Fratelli Tutti (Oct. 3, 2020) ................................................ 4 Tex. Const. art. 1, § 6 ................................................................................ 10 Texas Governor, Governor Abbott Issues Executive Order Restricting Transportation Of Migrants Due To COVID-19 (July 28, 2021) ........................................................................................ 6 Texas Governor, Office Of The Governor Issues Statement On Federal Judge Halting Executive Order GA-37 (August 3, 2021) ....................................................................................................... 7 iv Case 3:21-cv-00173-KC Document 34-1 Filed 08/12/21 Page 5 of 24 INTEREST OF THE AMICUS Amicus Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley is a ministry of the Catholic Church in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brownsville. The Diocese of Brownsville, led by Bishop Daniel E. Flores, is entrusted with the religious ministries of the Catholic Church across four counties in the Rio Grande Valley (Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy). Catholic Charities is a ministry through which the Diocese attends to its religious duty to provide mercy and service to the least among us. As part of that work of charity, Catholic Charities operates a Humanitarian Respite Center in McAllen, Texas, which ministers to the urgent physical needs of migrant families, primarily mothers and children. Catholic Charities submits this brief to provide the Court with information about the severe negative effect Governor Abbott’s Executive Order would have on Catholic Charities’ ability to carry out its religious mission, and in particular its ability to provide care to migrants at the Humanitarian Respite Center in McAllen. Amicus also offers this brief to explain how the Order’s unconstitutional restrictions on religious freedom tip the equities toward issuance of a preliminary injunction. 1 Case 3:21-cv-00173-KC Document 34-1 Filed 08/12/21 Page 6 of 24 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In this dispute between the state and federal governments, the arguments have focused on legal abstractions and fears related to COVID. Left out have been the flesh-and-blood people who stand to suffer because of Governor Abbott’s ill-conceived Executive Order. Migrants released into this country by Border Patrol have real human needs that ought to be met precisely because they are human beings. Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley seeks merely to “give a cup of water in Jesus’ name,” and to provide other services to migrants who arrive at Catholic Charities’ Humanitarian Respite Center, often just after experiencing harrowing trauma. Indeed, it is Catholic Charities’ God-given task to give—to give water, to give food, to give shelter from the sun, to give medical treatment, and, at a fundamental level, to give respect for migrants’ common human dignity. And though it is bad enough that Texas would prevent a church from helping women and babies who are suffering from hunger, heat, and exposure to the elements, the Order also fails on its own terms. Measured against the Governor’s ostensible goal of preventing the spread of COVID, the effect of the Order will likely be to spread COVID far more quickly in Texas. By forcing Border Patrol to release mothers and children in the middle of McAllen or other border cities—without the COVID testing and transportation to quarantine locations that Catholic Charities provides—the Executive Order endangers Texans and exposes them to COVID unnecessarily. Indeed, at a time when the Governor himself is asking hospitals to postpone medical procedures in an 2 Case 3:21-cv-00173-KC Document 34-1 Filed 08/12/21 Page 7 of 24 effort to stop the spread of the Delta variant of COVID, the notion that putting fewer COVID-positive migrants in quarantine would help stop COVID makes little sense. The harsh on-the-ground effects of the Order, and its unreasonableness, are not without legal consequence. First, by unconstitutionally interfering with the free exercise of religion, and violating the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act to boot, the Order cannot possibly be in the public interest for purposes of analyzing the federal government’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Second, the federal government has a higher likelihood of success on its Supremacy Clause claims because Texas’s actions invoke the federal government’s duty to protect First Amendment rights. In short, the Order’s attack on the religious freedom of Catholic Charities