Attorney General v. Desilets
1994 Mass. LEXIS 396, 636 N.E.2d 233, 418 Mass. 316 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A neutral, generally applicable state law that substantially burdens a sincerely held religious belief is subject to a balancing test requiring the state to prove that it has a compelling interest sufficient to justify the burden on the free exercise of religion.
Facts:
- The defendants, Paul and his brother (the Desilets), own a four-unit apartment building and other rental properties.
- The Desilets are Roman Catholics who hold a sincere religious belief that they should not facilitate conduct they consider sinful, including fornication and cohabitation by unmarried couples.
- For over a decade, the Desilets maintained a policy of not leasing apartments to any person who intends to engage in conduct that violates their religious principles, specifically applying it to unmarried couples.
- In August 1989, Mark Lattanzi and Cynthia Tarail, an unmarried couple, inquired about renting an apartment owned by the Desilets.
- Paul Desilets, acting on behalf of himself and his brother, refused to consider Lattanzi and Tarail as tenants solely because of their policy against renting to unmarried cohabiting couples.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Lattanzi and Cynthia Tarail filed a housing discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD).
- After the MCAD found probable cause, the complainants filed a notice for a judicial determination in the Superior Court.
- The Attorney General, on behalf of the complainants, commenced an action against the Desilets in Superior Court.
- In the Superior Court, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The Superior Court judge denied the Attorney General's motion and granted summary judgment for the defendants (the Desilets), ruling that applying the anti-discrimination statute to them was unconstitutional.
- The Attorney General (appellant) petitioned for direct appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the application of a state law prohibiting housing discrimination based on marital status to landlords who refuse to rent to unmarried cohabiting couples, due to the landlords' sincerely held religious beliefs, violate their right to the free exercise of religion under the Massachusetts Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
Uncertain. While the state's anti-discrimination law substantially burdens the landlords' sincerely held religious beliefs, the case must be remanded for a factual determination of whether the Commonwealth has a compelling interest that outweighs this burden. The court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's standard from Employment Div. v. Smith, instead adopting the more protective balancing test from Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder for claims under the Massachusetts Constitution. Under this test, the landlords successfully showed a substantial burden on their sincere religious beliefs. The burden now shifts to the Commonwealth to demonstrate, on a full factual record, that its interest in eliminating marital status discrimination in housing is sufficiently compelling to override the landlords' constitutional right to free exercise. The summary judgment record was insufficient to make this determination as a matter of law, as marital status discrimination is not as high a state concern as other forms of discrimination, and the existence of a state law criminalizing fornication weakens the state's asserted interest.
Dissenting - O'Connor, J.
Yes. The application of the state anti-discrimination law unconstitutionally violates the landlords' right to the free exercise of religion. The dissent agrees with using the balancing test but argues that no trial is necessary because the outcome is clear as a matter of law. The fundamental right to the free exercise of religion will always outweigh the state's interest in preventing discrimination against unmarried cohabiting couples, which is not a compelling state concern. No set of facts could be developed at trial that would justify forcing the landlords to choose between their commercial endeavors and their religiously informed consciences.
Concurring - Liacos, C.J.
Uncertain. The Chief Justice agrees with the majority's decision to remand the case and its application of the balancing test under Article 46 of the Massachusetts Constitution. However, he writes separately to argue that the court should have first analyzed the defendants' conduct under Article 2 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which provides absolute protection for religious 'worship' that does not 'disturb the public peace.' He believes the defendants' religiously motivated refusal to rent could be considered a form of worship. He would have remanded the case for a determination of whether the defendants' actions disturbed the public peace, which, if they did not, would afford them absolute protection without any need for a balancing test.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that the Massachusetts Constitution provides greater protection for the free exercise of religion than the First Amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Employment Div. v. Smith. By rejecting Smith and adhering to the older Sherbert/Yoder balancing test, the court affirmed that even neutral, generally applicable laws are subject to strict scrutiny if they substantially burden religious practice. This ruling elevates the protection for religious freedom in the state and requires the government to make a particularized, fact-based showing of a compelling interest when its laws conflict with sincere religious beliefs. It underscores that not all anti-discrimination classifications carry the same weight when balanced against fundamental constitutional rights.
