The U.S. Department of Justice and nine state Attorneys General have filed briefs in support of Prison Fellowship and the InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) asking the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Robert Pratt’s decision that ordered Iowa to close the IFI program. In addition, Friend of the Court briefs in support of IFI were filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, the American Center for Law and Justice, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, Teen Challenge, Time to Fly, Evangelicals for Social Action and the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom.
The high caliber of the organizations supporting the IFI appeal is an indication of the importance of this case. At a time when states are struggling to reduce recidivism, the district court’s ruling in favor of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State would eliminate a very successful program with a proven track record of changing prisoners’ lives and preparing them to be productive, law-abiding citizens.
The Prison Fellowship brief, filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argues that:
(1) The Court’s decision takes away an effective tool for prison administrators to deal with rising recidivism rates, which is a major societal problem.
(2) The Court’s decision effectively prohibits people of faith from helping to solve this societal problem.
(3) The opinion fails to recognize the fact that enrollment in the program is completely voluntary.
(4) There is no evidence that inmates are coerced into enrolling into the IFI Program.
(5) IFI does not require inmates to convert to Christianity to enroll, progress, or graduate from the program.
(6) The Court’s reliance on the “pervasively sectarian” test is out-of touch with current Establishment Clause law.
(7) The Court improperly focused on events that happened in 1999/2000 instead of focusing on how the program is run today.
(8) The Court’s ruling on recoupment is unprecedented and lacks any factual basis.
(See PF’s Fact Sheet for more on these points.)
The U.S. Department of Justice brief disputes Judge Pratt’s decision to order IFI and Prison Fellowship to repay to the state of Iowa the $1.5 million that it was paid for the services it rendered, even though Iowa was delighted with the work of IFI and did not seek to recoup its payments. Such recoupment orders “typically fail to take into account that a contractor or grant recipient may have provided valuable services to the government wholly apart” from the question of a violation of church and state.
The DOJ brief also disputes the lower court’s reliance on the outdated “pervasively sectarian” standard, and notes that a “judicial order directing such recoupment interferes with the discretion of the political branches over the public fisc, and the prospect of such retroactive relief threatens to deter private organizations (particularly those with limited resources) from participating in government funding programs. Those concerns are directly implicated by this case because the district court ordered recoupment even though the State itself did not seek reimbursement of the funds at issue.”
The DOJ points out the chilling effect on other ministries that forcing IFI to repay the $1.5 million would have. “…grant recipients should not have to forego the opportunity to participate in government programs at the risk of the drastic and financially crippling remedy of recoupment should the program later be held unconstitutional.”
The amicus brief by the Attorneys General of Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas argues that “the States are in desperate need of prisoner rehabilitation programs that actually reduce recidivism and are cost effective. Faith-based programs—such as the Prison Fellowship program at issue in this appeal—offer an alternative to failed conventional rehabilitation programs.
Given the clear failure of existing rehabilitation programs and the clear promise of the faith-based rehabilitation programs, the States should be allowed to ‘serve as a laboratory’ and ‘experiment’ with voluntary faith-based rehabilitation programs.”
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) brief was filed on behalf of several IFI graduates who describe how IFI helped them become contributing members of their communities, and how different their lives would be if they had not had a program like IFI. “If the IFI program were to be dismantled and penalized (especially by the million-dollar-plus restitution order in this case) under the decision below, this would both punish a successful program and profoundly deter any similar program in the future, all to the detriment of people like the individual amici (as well as their families and, indeed, society at large).”
The brief by the Alliance Defense Fund, National Association of Evangelicals, Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, Teen Challenge, Time to Fly, Evangelicals for Social Action and the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom passionately describes dilemma faced by society as governments attempt to reduce recidivism. “How to instill in a prisoner the personal qualities that constitute decent character and will be indispensable to a law-abiding life outside—self-respect, responsibility, integrity, respect for others, pride in accomplishment, gratitude—without pushing religion? If prisons are going to attempt moral reform, they will have to do it indirectly, in creative partnership with private groups. That is because the groups that are in the character-forming and transforming business tend to be religious. Reforming prisoners, then, offers a terrific opportunity for “faith-based” social services—like the Prison Fellowship and InnerChange—provided through cooperation between institutions of civil society and government, for the common good.
Charles Colson, his group, and faith based groups throughout our nation have done this country and many thousands of imprisoned souls a great but largely unheralded service these 30 years. They do not do it for governmental praise, but it still smarts when a federal judge kicks them for their effort. And this is precisely what Judge Pratt did. (emphasis mine)
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights filed its brief “to correct the District Court’s caricature of Evangelical Christians in general, and Prison Fellowship Ministries in particular, as anti-Catholic. In fact, Prison Fellowship and its founder Dr. Charles Colson have been long-time leaders in Evangelical-Catholic dialogue. The cause of fighting all-too-prevalent anti-Catholic bigotry is ill served by painting friends of Catholicism as its enemies.”
“Nothing in this Brief is intended to suggest that the courts of the United States ought not to protect religious freedom by protecting the freedom of believers and of the Church from government interference. But this Court’s consideration of the work of InnerChange and Prison Fellowship Ministries should be undertaken without the taint of the district court’s homebrewed theological analysis of that work as narrow, prejudiced, or anti-Catholic, when in fact its is quite the opposite: open-minded, generous, and ecumenically cooperative.”
The American United for Separation of Church and State will file its briefs early next month, and we anticipate that oral arguments will take place shortly after the New Year. This issues involved in this case are so fundamental to the role that the Church can and ought to play in working with government to deal with society’s most persistent social problems that we fully expect the case to end up in the Supreme Court no matter how the circuit court rules. Stay tuned.
In His service,
Pat Nolan
President, Justice Fellowship
|
