Americans United for Separation of Church and State
ALABAMA CHAPTER
April 24, 2017
The Honorable Mac McCutcheon
Alabama House of Representatives
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
Re: Oppose SB 193 – An Unconstitutional Grant of Police Powers to a Church
Dear Speaker McCutcheon:
On behalf of our members and supporters, the Mobile Chapter of Americans United for
Separation of Church and State urges you to oppose SB 193 which gives “all of the powers of
law enforcement officers in this state” to a police force created by and for Briarwood
Presbyterian Church. The bill is both unnecessary and unconstitutional. Creation of a churchemployed and state-sanctioned police force is unprecedented and a flagrant violation of the
Establishment Clause of First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. SB 193 should be rejected.
The Establishment Clause is designed to prevent “a fusion of governmental and religious
functions.”1 It prohibits the State from “participat[ing] in the affairs of any religious
organizations or groups and vice versa.”2 Law enforcement is a core state function, and
delegation of those responsibilities to a church would unmistakably cross this line.
Indeed, the state cannot hand over its governmental duties to religious institutions. In Larkin v.
Grendel’s Den, Inc., an 8-1 decision, the Court struck down a Massachusetts law that allowed
churches to veto liquor license applications, explaining that “the Framers did not set up a
system of government in which important, discretionary governmental powers would be
delegated to or shared with religious institutions.”3 Similarly, in Kiryas Joel Village School
District v. Grumet, the Court invalidated a New York law that created a special school district for,
and thus gave civic authority to, one particular religious group.4
SB 193 suffers the exact same defects as the Massachusetts and New York laws: the law would
give discretionary government powers to a church. If delegating approval for alcohol permits to
a church is impermissible, it is hard to imagine how a state could delegate its core law
enforcement function to a church. Further, by only allowing Briarwood Presbyterian Church to
1
Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222 (1963).
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947) (emphasis added).
3
459 U.S. 116, 127 (1982).
4
512 U.S. 687 (1994).
2
NATIONAL OFFICE
1310 L Street NW, Suite 200—Washington, DC 20005
phone: (202) 466-3234 / fax: (202) 466-2587 / [email protected]
ALABAMA CHAPTER
Mobile, Alabama/ [email protected]
create a police force, the state is favoring this religious group over all others. But under the
Establishment Clause, one religious denomination, institution, or house of worship cannot
officially be preferred over another.5
That this bill violates the Constitution is clear. Passage of SB 193, therefore, will inevitably lead
to costly litigation, and Alabama taxpayers will have to foot the bill. In addition, anyone arrested
by one of Briarwood’s police officers would likely seek to invalidate any charges or overturn
any conviction by arguing that the police department itself is unconstitutional. Finally, any
arrest or other law enforcement action could open up the church itself to tort and other legal
liability.
To be sure, some state courts have upheld statutes giving private universities, including
religiously affiliated institutions, their own police departments. However, each of those
decisions rested, at least in part, on finding that the universities’ purpose and function was not
primarily religious.6 Obviously, that is not the case with Briarwood Presbyterian Church which
is a house of worship.
Finally, it is unnecessary for Briarwood Presbyterian Church to have its own police force to
ensure safety for the church, its ministries, and its congregation. Briarwood is currently served
by sheriff’s deputies from both Jefferson and Shelby counties, and the area around campus is
patrolled by the Vestavia Hills Police Department.7 If state legislators believe that there should
be a stronger law enforcement presence around the Briarwood church, then legislators should
find a way to bolster local law enforcement, not hand over their duties to the church itself and
blur the distinction between religious and government functions.
Of course, Americans United supports the right of all Americans to be safe and secure in
their house of worship. However, that does not require compromising our constitutional
protections.
We therefore strongly urge to you oppose SB 193.
5
McCreary Cty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005); see also Kiryas Joel, 512 U.S. at 702-05.
See State v. Yencer, 696 S.E. 2d 615, 622 (N.C. 2011) (“Because Davidson College is not ‘predominantly religious’
. . . the delegation of power here bears little resemblance to that in Larkin.); Myers v. State, 714 N.E.2d 276, 283 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1999) (“we have no hesitancy concluding that Valparaiso University is not a religious institution for First
Amendment purposes.”); People v. Van Tubbergen, 642 N.W.2d 368, 382 (Mich. Ct. App 2002) (“although Hope
College is closely affiliated with a religious denomination, the record indicates it neither functions as a religious
governing body nor as a church”).
7
Corky Siemaszko, Alabama May Allow Church to Form Own Police Force, NBC News, (Mar. 20, 2017),
http://nbcnews.to/2nwU2dS.
6
2
Sincerely,
Vivian Beckerle
President, Alabama Chapter
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
CC: Members of the Alabama House of Representatives
3