At today's hearing, defendant Thomas stated that he was
acting on the basis of a "sincerely held religious belief."
2
All defendants, either through counsel or on their own behalf,
joined in Mr. Thomas's statement. In response to a specific inquiry,
the United States stated that it did not contest the sincerity
of defendants' beliefs or that defendants were acting at the time
of their arrest pursuant to a "sincerely held religious belief."
As a result, the sincerity of the defendants' beliefs was not
controverted.
The Court then asked the Government to specify its interest
in prosecuting these defendants under the regulation at issue,
36 C.F.R. 7.96(i) and whether it wished to respond to the defendants'
motion. The Government stated that it had "no interest in
prohibiting any of these defendants from sleeping in the park"
add that its only interest in this case was "enforcing
the regulations" at issue. The Court asked the Government
if it wished to offer anything other reason, any piece of evidence,
or wished to cross-examine any of the defendants. The Government
declined to do any of these things.
When it has been shown that an individual has acted contrary
to law out of a "sincerely held religious belief," it
is the Government's responsibility to show that it has a compelling
interest in the law at issue and that it has enforced that law
with the least restrictive means with respect to that religious
belief. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972);
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (194~); see also
Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981); L. Tribe, American
Constitutional Law §14-10. The Government did not offer
a scintilla of evidence to that effect. Nor did it proffer a single
reason sufficient in law to support a claim of compelling interest.
Indeed, the Government did not proffer any response
to the
3
defendants' position stated above that even remotely met the
applicable legal standard. A mere statement that the Government
has an interest in enforcing the regulation at issue is not a
showing that the Government has a compelling interest in the regulation
or that its means of enforcing the regulation were the least restrictive
possible. The Government's response does not rise to the dignity
necessary to sustain their burden and does not offer a sufficient
legal basis on which to maintain these prosecutions. As a result,
this Court has no choice but to dismiss the Informations in these
cases and to deem the remaining motions moot in light of the Court's
action Accordingly, it is this 23rd day of April, 1987.
ORDERED that the defendants' motions to dismiss
these cases on the grounds that defendants' actions were protected
by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment shall be, and
hereby is, granted; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining motions submitted
by the defendants shall be, and hereby are, dismissed as moot;
and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned cases shall
be, and hereby are, dismissed.
(signed) CHARLES R. RICHEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Contents
Case Listing --- Proposition
One ---- Peace Park