Harvest Family Church et al v. Federal Emergency Management Agency et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 24 Opposed MOTION to Stay (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4)
Case 4:17-cv-02662 Document 45 Filed in TXSD on 11/09/17 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HARVEST FAMILY CHURCH, et al,
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, et al,
November 10, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-2662
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs in this case ask the Court to hold unconstitutional the policy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) not to provide assistance to most houses of
worship. The request comes at a time when FEMA confronts the aftermath of emergencies from
California to Puerto Rico and many points in between, and is aimed at a policy that is fraught
with Establishment Clause and Free Exercise issues.
The Court acknowledges its heavy sense of humility in undertaking the task before it.
Particularly so in that it is asked to grant preliminary relief before plenary consideration. It also
acknowledges the handicap imposed by FEMA’s unwillingness either to defend the current
policy or to articulate a new one.
This is a First Amendment case. Plaintiffs are three churches, all of which provided
emergency relief services during and after Hurricane Harvey, and all of which also suffered
significant damage in the storm. Defendants are FEMA and its Administrator, which are
responsible for coordinating the federal government’s response to any natural disaster. Plaintiffs
are suing FEMA because they contend that the agency’s grant policy violates the Free Exercise
Case 4:17-cv-02662 Document 45 Filed in TXSD on 11/09/17 Page 2 of 7
Clause. Pending before the Court are two motions: Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. No. 12) and Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 24).
On August 25, Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas and the federal government
began to respond. That response was governed in large part by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (“Stafford Act”), which authorizes the President to
provide federal assistance when the magnitude of a natural disaster exceeds the affected state or
local government’s ability to respond. Many of FEMA’s regulations implementing the Stafford
Act fall under the Public Assistance Program (“PA Program”). The PA Program specifically
allows for “private nonprofit facilities” (“PNPs”) to receive disaster relief grants—as long as
those facilities satisfy certain eligibility criteria.
In order to be an eligible facility, a PNP must own or operate a facility that either (1)
“provides a critical service, which is defined as education, utility, emergency, or medical” or (2)
“provides a non-critical, but essential governmental service AND is open to the general public.”
FED. EMERGENCY MGMT. AGENCY, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND POLICY GUIDE 12 (2017),
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1496435662672d79ba9e1edb16e60b51634af00f490ae/2017_PAPPG_2.0_508_FINAL(2).pdf (“Policy Guide”).
Plaintiffs here argue that they fall under category (2) because they provide “non-critical, but
essential governmental service[s]” and are “open to the general public.” Their openness to the
general public is not in dispute. Instead, the nature of the “non-critical, but essential
governmental service[s]” that they would need to provide in order to be eligible for PA Program
funding is the crux of this case.
In order to satisfy the “non-critical, but essential governmental service” requirement, a
facility must provide a service that is “eligible.” The list of “eligible” non-critical, essential
Case 4:17-cv-02662 Document 45 Filed in TXSD on 11/09/17 Page 3 of 7
governmental services includes “hobby or at-home pursuits, such as car care, ceramics, [or]
gardening,” “child care,” “rehabilitation programs,” and “homeless shelters.” The list of
“ineligible” services includes “[r]eligious activities, such as worship, proselytizing, [or] religious
instruction . . . .” Policy Guide at 15. The “eligible”/“ineligible” distinction creates complications
because PNPs frequently provide multiple services to their communities. In such cases, FEMA
reviews the facilities’ “[tax] documentation,” “pre-disaster charter, bylaws, and amendments,”
and “evidence of longstanding, routine (day-to-day) use” in order to determine what the “primary
use” of the facility is. Policy Guide at 12. As FEMA explains:
“Primary use” is the use for which more than 50 percent of the physical
space in the facility is dedicated . . . . If FEMA determines that 50 percent
or more of physical space is dedicated to ineligible services, the entire
facility is ineligible. If the [mixed-use] facility is eligible, FEMA prorates
funding based on the percentage of physical space dedicated to eligible
services. The Applicant is responsible for the balance of costs to restore
the facility and must restore the entire facility to receive funding for
repairs to the eligible-use portions of the facility.
Policy Guide at 17. Under the “primary use” test, a house of worship that dedicates more than 50
percent of its space to religious activities is ineligible to receive any funds. In this case, Plaintiffs
identify as houses of worship dedicating nearly all of their space to religious activities. They
argue that the “primary use” test violates their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First
“A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary remedy’ that should not be granted unless
its proponent clearly shows: (1) a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits, (2) a
substantial threat that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) his
threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party whom he seeks to enjoin, and (4)
granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Google, Inc. v. Hood,
Case 4:17-cv-02662 Document 45 Filed in TXSD on 11/09/17 Page 4 of 7
822 F.3d 212, 220 (5th Cir. 2016).
a. Substantial likelihood of success on the merits
Plaintiffs rely on Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, which held that a
public benefits program with an express policy of rejecting grant applications from any applicant
owned or controlled by a religious entity violates the Free Exercise Clause by denying that entity
an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status. 137 S. Ct. 2012, 2022
(2017). Plaintiffs insist that they claim no “entitlement to a subsidy,” but rather “a right to
participate in a government benefit program without having to disavow [a] religious character.”
Id. at 2022. Plaintiffs also maintain that there is no substantive distinction between the program
at issue in Trinity Lutheran, which categorically excluded any applicant owned or controlled by a
religious entity, and the PA Program, which effectively excludes any applicant owned or
controlled by an entity dedicating at least 50 percent of its facility to ineligible religious activity,
because both exemplify the kind of status-based discrimination that the Court found
unconstitutional in Trinity Lutheran.
b. Substantial threat of irreparable injury
Plaintiffs argue that, as a matter of law, “the loss of First Amendment freedoms for even
minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury justifying the grant of a preliminary
injunction.” Gordon v. City of Houston, 79 F. Supp. 3d 676, 694 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (quoting
Texans for Free Enter. v. Tex. Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535, 539 (5th Cir. 2013) and citing
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)). At oral argument, they characterized this injury as a
“dignitary harm.” Plaintiffs have also drawn the Court’s attention to various provisions in the PA
Program requiring potential applicants to refrain from making construction decisions until
FEMA completes an environmental and historic preservation assessment, which allegedly
Case 4:17-cv-02662 Document 45 Filed in TXSD on 11/09/17 Page 5 of 7
threaten the churches’ ability to act speedily in repairing their facilities. Policy Guide at 87.
c. Threatened injury outweighs threatened harm to enjoined party
Plaintiffs argue that, absent an injunction, they face the grievous harm of religious-status
discrimination that is, quoting Trinity Lutheran, “odious to our Constitution,” Trinity Lutheran,
137 S. Ct. at 2025. They emphasize that churches are being left “in the lurch” as they try to
recover from the disaster. Plaintiffs also highlight that houses of worship are among the first
responders in times of disaster and that religious orientation does not impede an organization’s
ability to provide effective recovery assistance to the general public.
d. Will not disserve public interest
Plaintiffs note the strong public interest in the free exercise of religion and that promoting
disaster relief is always in the public interest, even when the entities doing so are houses of
FEMA’s Motion to Stay explains that the agency is currently reconsidering its eligibility
policy. During the period of reconsideration, FEMA has directed its regional administrators to
implement the following practice:
Where an eligibility review determines a PNP HOW [private nonprofit
house of worship] is an eligible applicant for Public Assistance because it
operates an eligible facility, FEMA should fully process this application
through the standard workflow process for PNPs. Where an eligibility
review determines a PNP HOW is not an eligible applicant for Public
Assistance because it does not operate an eligible facility, FEMA should
place the workflow process on hold until further notice from the Office of
Chief Counsel (OCC).
(Doc. No. 40 at 2-3.) (internal citations omitted). Defendants cite no case law in support
of their position that the mere consideration of a policy change is sufficient to justify a
stay. They simply argue that a stay would not prejudice Plaintiffs because FEMA will not
Case 4:17-cv-02662 Document 45 Filed in TXSD on 11/09/17 Page 6 of 7
deny pending applications from houses of worship during the reconsideration period.
FEMA has declined to defend the merits of its policy. FEMA has also declined to engage
in a substantive analysis of the four-part criteria that govern the issuance of a preliminary
The agency has asked the Court to stay the case until November 29. This request is
DENIED. The Court is willing, however, to delay its ruling on the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction until December 1. As distinguished from a stay, the parties may continue to file
pleadings and briefs within this period.
The Court has received instructive briefing from amici in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion,
for which it expresses gratitude. Nevertheless, as the Fifth Circuit has recognized, “Without
opponents, the adversary system cannot function.” United States v. Chagra, 701 F.2d 354, 361
(5th Cir. 1983). The Court would therefore welcome amici with differing views.
If, by December 1, FEMA’s position remains unchanged, the Court will assume that
FEMA concedes, at the very least, Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of this case and
that the injury being suffered by Plaintiffs is irreparable. The Court will then issue its ruling on
Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief.
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Say is DENIED. The Court
issues no ruling at this time on Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on the 9th of November, 2017.
HON. KEITH P. ELLISON
Case 4:17-cv-02662 Document 45 Filed in TXSD on 11/09/17 Page 7 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?