Order Denying Defendants' Motion To Dismiss RFRA

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 37
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff,
v.
LYLE STEED JEFFS, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-CR-82 TS
Defendants.
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Lyle Steed
Jeffs. The other Defendants have joined the Motion. Defendants seek partial dismissal under the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. For the reasons
discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
A.
THE FLDS CHURCH

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) is a religion
that finds its roots in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Communal living is a
tenant of the FLDS church. That concept is known as the Law of Consecration or the United
Order.
Under the Law of Consecration, faithful members are expected to donate their assets to
the FLDS church through a clearinghouse known as the Bishops Storehouse. An individual
who has made a consecration is entitled to seek a stewardship, or permission to use donated
property as is necessary to satisfy the just wants and needs of their family. The Bishop oversees
the Storehouse, receiving the items that have been consecrated and attempting to fulfil the just
wants and needs of FLDS members.
The Law of Consecration is found in religious texts used in the FLDS church.
Throughout its history, FLDS leaders have taught the importance of the Law of Consecration.
FLDS members have been taught and believe that their eternal salvation is based, at least in part,
on living consistent with the Law of Consecration.
In 2011, Warren Jeffs, the prophet and leader of the FLDS church, initiated the Holy
United Order. Participation in the United Order required members to donate all property, time,
money, and goods to the Bishops Storehouse and also to receive all necessities from the
Storehouse. Membership in the United Order was something to be desired among FLDS
members.
B.
SNAP
Congress created the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in order to
promote the general welfare, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nations population
by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households. 1 SNAP was authorized to permit
low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by
increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation. 2 To
accomplish this goal in most instances, eligible households are issued an allotment that is then
used to purchase eligible food from approved retail food stores. 3
7 U.S.C. 2011.
Id.
Id. 2013(a).
The definition of eligible household is important to the administration of the program

and has undergone various changes over the years. 4 The size of the household determines the
level of benefits an applicant may receive. Further, [p]articipation in the supplemental nutrition
assistance program [is] limited to those households whose incomes and other financial resources,
held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting
them to obtain a more nutritious diet. 5 Currently, household is defined generally as individuals
who live together and customarily purchase and prepare meals together. 6 If a household is
determined to meet the eligibility requirements, an allotment may be issued. The value of the
allotment . . . shall be equal to the cost to such households of the thrifty food plan reduced by an
amount equal to 30 per centum of the households income, as determined in accordance with
section 2014(d) and (e) of this title, rounded to the nearest lower whole dollar. 7
Generally, SNAP benefits may only be used by eligible households to purchase eligible
food. 8 The regulations implementing SNAP similarly state that [p]rogram benefits may be used
only by the household . . . to purchase eligible food for the household. 9 However, there are no
Docket No. 458 Ex. 7 1825.
7 U.S.C. 2014(a).
Id. 2012(m).
Id. 2017(a).
Id. 2013(a) (The benefits so received by such households shall be used only to
purchase food from retail food stores which have been approved for participation in the
supplemental nutrition assistance program.); id. 2016(b) (Benefits issued to eligible
households shall be used by them only to purchase food from retail food stores which have been
approved for participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program at prices prevailing
in such stores.).
9
7 C.F.R. 274.7(a); see also id. 278.2(a) (Coupons may be accepted by an

authorized retail food store only from eligible households or the households authorized
representative, and only in exchange for eligible food.).
specific regulations concerning whether an individual may donate foods received from their
benefits to a religious organization.
Congress has made it a crime for anyone to knowingly use, transfer, acquire, alter, or
possess SNAP benefits in any manner contrary to this chapter or the regulations issued pursuant
to this chapter. 10 It is also a crime for a person to knowingly present or cause to be presented
SNAP benefits knowing the same to have been received, transferred, or used in any manner in
violation of the provisions of this chapter or the regulations issued pursuant to this chapter. 11
C.
THE DEFENDANTS
Defendants are members of the FLDS Church. Defendants have presented evidence
attesting to their belief in and commitment to the Law of Consecration. Defendants state that
their eternal salvation depends, in part, on living consistent with the Law of Consecration.
Further, Defendants Lyle Steed Jeffs and John Clifton Wayman have presented evidence that
they acted as Bishops during the time period covered by the Indictment. In that role, they would
have taught the Law of Consecration and assisted in the distribution of items from the
Storehouse. Defendant Seth Steed Jeffs has presented evidence that he received SNAP benefits.
Defendant Seth Jeffs further testified that he has donated food received using SNAP benefits to
the Bishops Storehouse.
D.
THE INDICTMENT
The Indictment alleges that beginning in 2011, FLDS leaders directed members to divert
their SNAP benefits to the Bishops Storehouse. Members were told to either purchase items
10
7 U.S.C. 2024(b).
11
Id. 2024(c).
and physically bring them to the Storehouse to be donated, or simply swipe their SNAP cards
without the exchange of any food products. The Indictment alleges that food items were
provided to FLDS members who did not qualify to receive SNAP benefits and that converted
proceeds were used to purchase non-eligible items. Defendants are charged with conspiracy to
commit SNAP benefits fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
II. DISCUSSION
A.
RFRA
RFRA provides that the [g]overnment shall not substantially burden a persons exercise
of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. 12 RFRA creates an
exception. The government may impose such a burden if it demonstrates that application of the
burden to the person . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and . . . is the
least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 13 RFRA allows
religious adherents to challenge government activities that encroach on their beliefs. 14
To make out a prima facie RFRA defense, a criminal defendant must show by a
preponderance of the evidence that government action (1) substantially burdens (2) a religious
belief, not merely a philosophy or way of life, (3) that the defendant sincerely holds. 15 If a
12
42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(a).
13
Id. 2000bb-1(b).
14
United States v. Quaintance, 608 F.3d 717, 719 (10th Cir. 2010); see also 42 U.S.C.
2000bb-1(c) (A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section
may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate
relief against a government.).
15
Quaintance, 608 F.3d at 719.
defendant makes that showing, it falls to the government to show that the challenged action is
justified as the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. 16
All parties ask the Court to limit its determination to whether RFRA protects the
following: (1) utilizing SNAP cards to purchase food items that are subsequently consecrated to
the FLDS Bishops Storehouse for distribution to all FLDS members, including those not eligible
for SNAP benefits, with the guidance of the churchs leadership; and (2) teaching, preaching, or
training on the topics of the United Order, the Law of Consecration and/or the procedures by
which FLDS members provide and/or receive food items from the FLDS Storehouse.
1.
Religious Belief
Defendants must first prove that their beliefs are religious, rather than a philosophy or a
way of life. 17 In United States v. Meyers, the Tenth Circuit approved consideration of a variety
of factors to determine whether a belief is a religious belief. Religious beliefs often address
fundamental questions about life, purpose, and death. 18 Further, [r]eligious beliefs often
prescribe a particular manner of acting, or way of life, that is moral or ethical. 19 A moral or
ethical belief structure . . . may create dutiesduties often imposed by some higher power, force,
or spiritthat require the believer to abnegate elemental self-interest. 20 In addition, there are
16
Id. at 71920.
17
United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475, 1482 (10th Cir. 1996).
18
Id. at 1483.
19
Id.
20
Id.
certain accoutrements of religion, including the presence of a founder or prophet, important

writings, ceremonies and rituals, and the desire to propagate their views. 21
There is no dispute that the FLDS church is a religion. There is also no dispute that the
Law of Consecration is a tenant of the FLDS church. The Law of Consecration itself carries
many of the indicia of a religious belief set forth above. The Law of Consecration is found in
religious texts held sacred by members of the FLDS church. It has been taught and expounded
upon by FLDS leaders, including current and former prophets. Leaders of the FLDS Church
routinely teach this principle to its members. The Law of Consecration also prescribes a
particular way of life that is considered moral and ethical. 22 It creates a duty imposed by God
that requires members to act in a certain way. As Defendant Seth Steed Jeffs explained,
I believe that the law of consecration is lived in heaven. I believe Im preparing
for that. Im learning right now how to live with heavenly father, and I believe
that all of the principles taught by the prophets are given to us now so that we can
learn that in preparation for what comes after life. 23
Based upon this, the Court finds that Defendants belief in living and teaching the Law of
Consecration is religious in nature.
21
Id. at 148384.
22
Id. at 1483 (A moral or ethical belief structure . . . may create dutiesduties often
imposed by some higher power, force, or spiritthat require the believer to abnegate elemental
self-interest.).
23
Docket No. 661, at 72:1723.
2.
Sincerely Held
Defendants must also establish that their beliefs are sincerely held. The issue of sincerity
is a factual matter. 24 In making this determination, the Court may not decide whether the
claimants religious belief is true. 25 Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation. 26
When inquiring into a claimants sincerity . . . our task is instead a more modest
one, limited to asking whether the claimant is (in essence) seeking to perpetrate a
fraud on the courtwhether he actually holds the beliefs he claims to holda
comparatively familiar task for secular courts that are regularly called on to make
credibility assessmentsand an important task, too, for ensuring the integrity of
any judicial proceeding. 27
[A]n adherents belief would not be sincere if he acts in a manner inconsistent with
that belief, or if there is evidence that the adherent materially gains by fraudulently hiding
secular interests behind a veil of religious doctrine. 28 Similarly, a belief may not be sincere if it
is motivated by commercial or secular motives rather than sincere religious conviction. 29
However, [a] finding of sincerity does not require perfect adherence to beliefs expressed by the
[claimant], and even the most sincere practitioner may stray from time to time. 30 [A] sincere
religious believer doesnt forfeit his religious rights merely because he is not scrupulous in his
observance. 31
24
Meyers, 95 F.3d at 1482.
25
Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48, 54 (10th Cir. 2014).
26
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Empt Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 716 (1981).
27
Yellowbear, 741 F.3d at 54.
28
Intl Socy for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, 650 F.2d 430, 441 (2d Cir. 1981)
(citations omitted).
29
Quaintance, 608 F.3d at 722.
30
Moussazadeh v. Tex. Dept of Criminal Justice, 703 F.3d 781, 791 (5th Cir. 2012).
31
Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2012).
Defendants have presented evidence demonstrating that they are lifelong members of the
FLDS church. As such, they have been taught to live according to the principles of the FLDS
church, including the Law of Consecration. Defendants beliefs are a critical source of guidance
and comfort to them at important times in their lives. Further, Defendants strive to live in a way
consistent with their beliefs and believe that their eternal salvation depends, at least in part, on
doing so.
The government argues that Defendants factual showing is insufficient. The government
argues that Defendants general statements concerning their belief in the Law of Consecration
and their desire to teach that principle are insufficient. The government contends that
Defendants must identify a religious belief in consecrating SNAP benefits or teaching others to
donate their SNAP benefits.
In support, the government points to Guam v. Guerrero 32 and United States v. Bauer. 33
Both cases involved adherents to Rastafarianism who had been charged with importation and
distribution of marijuana, respectively. The defendants argued that they had a sincerely held
religious belief in using marijuana. The Ninth Circuit held that while the defendants might have
a sincerely held belief in using marijuana, they had failed to demonstrate that anything in
Rastafarianism required the distribution or importation of marijuana. 34 Therefore, laws
prohibiting that conduct did not impose a substantial burden.
The Court disagrees that Defendants showing here is insufficient. The governments
argument fails to fully appreciate the Law of Consecration, as Defendants understand it.
32
290 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2002).
33
84 F.3d 1549 (9th Cir. 1996).
34
Guerrero, 290 F.3d at 122223; Bauer, 84 F.3d at 1559.
Defendants have presented evidence that the Law of Consecration requires them to donate
everything that comes under their care. 35 This necessarily includes SNAP benefits that they
might receive. Thus, unlike the conduct at issue in Guerrero and Bauer, where the importation
and distribution of marijuana was not part of the defendants religion, Defendants religious
beliefs would require the consecration of food obtained using SNAP benefits, if they received it.
The government also more specifically challenges the sincerity of the beliefs of
Defendants Lyle Jeffs and John Wayman. The government argues that these Defendants have
acted in ways that were inconsistent with their professed beliefs and engaged in conduct that was
motivated by their financial interests, not their religious beliefs. The government has provided
evidence showing that Defendants Lyle Jeffs and John Wayman enjoyed preferential treatment,
even when the Bishops Storehouse could not meet the needs of average members. It is unclear
from the record, however, whether this preferential treatment was requested by these Defendants
or whether those who worked at the Storehouse did this of their own accord. Defendant Lyle
Jeffs has presented evidence that he directed that neither he nor his family was to get special
treatment when filling needs from the Storehouse. From the evidence presented, the Court
cannot conclude that Defendants beliefs were not sincere merely because they received
preferential treatment from Storehouse resources. In fact, preferential treatment for Bishops has
at least historical, if not religious, underpinnings. 36
More troubling is the evidence that Defendant Lyle Jeffs was not required, as were other
members, to utilize the Storehouse to obtain his food and evidence that Mr. Jeffs used
35
Docket No. 661, at 68:1269:16.
36
Docket No. 661, at 29:930:6; see also Docket No. 550, at 8 (citing Doctrine and
Covenants 42:7173) .
10
Storehouse funds to purchase items for his own benefit. Apparently, Mr. Jeffs had an appetite
for foods that were not found at the Storehouse and he authorized the use of Storehouse funds to
purchase those items. This included high quality meats, steaks, and vegetables and [l]uxury
items such as chocolates, nuts, and bakery items. 37 These items were available to Defendant
Lyle Jeffs and his family, but not other members. Defendant Lyle Jeffs also authorized the use
of Storehouse funds to purchase items used for extravagant meals prepared exclusively for him
and his guests. 38 Defendant knew full well that his meals were not prepared from Storehouse
ingredients. 39 There is also evidence Defendant Jeffs used money from the Storehouse to
purchase a luxury vehicle. 40
Moreover, the evidence shows that Lyle Jeffs was not required to endure the same type of
hardship the other members faced. Not only did Defendant Jeffs receive preferential treatment,
he lived a much more extravagant lifestyle than other members. 41 He had new clothing. 42 He
and his family received the nicest amenities and the best food. 43 His family ate three substantial
meals a day, including meat twice a day, while others would not receive meat for months at a
time. 44 When given the opportunity, Defendant did not dispute this evidence.
37
Docket No. 458 Ex. 6 13.
38
Id. Ex. 4 6.
39
Id. Ex. 3 5.
40
Id. Ex. 6 14.
41
Id. Ex. 4 4.
42
Id. Ex. 6 13.
43
Id. Ex. 4 4.
44
Id.
11
Based on this, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant Lyle Jeffs has a sincerely held
belief in the Law of Consecration. Defendant Jeffs acted inconsistently with the Law of
Consecration and materially benefitted from others adherence. The evidence demonstrates that
while others were required to obtain the items to fulfill the just wants and needs of their family
from the Storehouse, Defendant Jeffs was not. He used Storehouse funds to purchase the items
he and his family wanted that could not be obtained from the Storehouse. Based upon this
evidence, the Court finds that Defendant Lyle Jeffs has failed to provide evidence that his belief
in the Law of Consecration is sincere.
3.
Substantial Burden
Having found that the majority of Defendants have established a sincere religious belief,
the question becomes whether Defendants religious exercise is substantially burdened by the
regulation at issue. 45 The government contends that the SNAP statutes and regulations require
SNAP beneficiaries only use their SNAP benefits to purchase eligible foods for their household.
In this way, the statutes and regulations prevent members of the FLDS church from donating
food received through the use of their SNAP benefits. For the purposes of this Motion, the Court
will accept the governments statement of the law as true.
[A] government act imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise if it: (1)
requires participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief,
(2) prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious
belief, or (3) places substantial pressure on an adherent to engage in conduct
contrary to a sincerely held religious belief. 46
45
United States v. Wilgus, 638 F.3d 1274, 1279 (10th Cir. 2011).
46
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1138 (10th Cir. 2013) (en banc),
affd sub nom., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., ---U.S.---, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)
(quotation marks and alterations omitted).
12
Defendants argue they have been substantially burdened in four primary ways. First,
Defendants argue that this prosecution itself is a substantial burden. Second, Defendants argue
that enforcement of the SNAP statutes and regulations will substantially burden FLDS members.
Third, Defendants argue that enforcement of the SNAP statutes and regulations will interfere
with their ability to practice the Law of Consecration. Fourth, Defendants argue that the SNAP
statutes and regulations interfere with their ability to teach the Law of Consecration. 47 In
addition to these four primary arguments, various Defendants have made arguments as to how
the SNAP statutes and regulations might substantially burden their sincerely held religious
beliefs. The Court will discuss each argument in turn.
a.
Prosecution
Defendants first argue that the mere fact that they are being prosecuted demonstrates a
substantial burden. Defendants rely on Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service. 48 In that
case, the Ninth Circuit stated: Under RFRA, substantial burden is imposed only when
individuals are forced to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a
governmental benefit . . . or coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil
or criminal sanctions . . . . 49 Support for the second statement comes from the Supreme Court
47
Underlying Defendants concerns about living and teaching the Law of Consecration is
that their eternal salvation depends, at least in part, on doing so.
48
535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008).
49
Id. at 106970.
13
case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 50 one of the cases establishing the substantial burden test the drafters
of RFRA sought to restore. 51
In Yoder, the defendants were members of the Amish religion who had been convicted of
violating Wisconsins compulsory school attendance law after declining to send their children to
public school after they completed the eighth grade. 52 The Supreme Court reversed their
convictions based on the First Amendment. The Court held that the compulsory attendance law
compels them, under threat of criminal sanction, to perform acts undeniably at odds with
fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs. 53 Rather than concluding that the mere fact of
prosecution was sufficient to establish a substantial burden, the Court considered the effect the
compulsory education law had on the defendants religious beliefs.
[S]econdary schooling, by exposing Amish children to worldly influences in
terms of attitudes, goals, and values contrary to beliefs, and by substantially
interfering with the religious development of the Amish child and his integration
into the way of life of the Amish faith community at the crucial adolescent stage
of development, contravenes the basic religious tenets and practice of the Amish
faith, both as to the parent and the child. 54
Just as the Court in Yoder considered the effect of Wisconsins compulsory attendance
law on Amish parents and children, so too must this Court examine how the SNAP statutes and
50
406 U.S. 205 (1976).
51
See 42 U.S.C. 2000bb(b)(1).
52
Yoder, 406 U.S. at 20708.
53
Id. at 218.
54
Id.; see also id. at 219 (In sum, the unchallenged testimony of acknowledged experts
in education and religious history, almost 300 years of consistent practice, and strong evidence of
a sustained faith pervading and regulating respondents entire mode of life support the claim that
enforcement of the States requirement of compulsory formal education after the eighth grade
would gravely endanger if not destroy the free exercise of respondents religious beliefs.).
14
regulations might interfere with the conduct for which Defendants seek protection. 55 This makes
sense because if the mere fact of prosecution were enough to trigger a substantial burden, every
criminal Defendant raising a RFRA claim would be able to succeed on this element, rendering
the substantial burden portion of the RFRA test superfluous in criminal cases. Nothing in RFRA
or the case law supports this conclusion.
For example, in United States v. Friday, 56 a case where the defendant was charged with
shooting an eagle without a permit, the Tenth Circuit had to examine whether Mr. Fridays
religious exercise has been substantially burdened. 57 The court was skeptical that the bare
requirement of obtaining a permit can be regarded as a substantial burden under RFRA, but
decided the case on alternative grounds. 58 There, as in Yoder, the court looked at the effect of
the statute on the defendant to determine whether a substantial burden existed, not merely at the
fact that he had been prosecuted. Thus, the Court rejects Defendants argument that the
existence of this prosecution alone presents a substantial burden. To be sure, statutes and
regulations carrying criminal penalties may impose a substantial burden. But the Court must
look at how those statutes and regulations relate to Defendants religious exercise to determine
whether a substantial burden exists.
55
See, e.g., Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, 794 F.3d 1151, 1177
(10th Cir. 2015), vacated, Zubik v. Burwell, ---U.S.---, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016) (In determining
whether a law or policy applies substantial pressure on a claimant to violate his or her beliefs, we
consider how the law or policy being challenged actually operates and affects religious
exercise.).
56
525 F.3d 938 (10th Cir. 2008).
57
Id. at 947.
58
Id.
15
United States v. Gonzales, 59 a case relied upon by Defendant Lyle Jeffs, does not alter
this conclusion. In Gonzales, a Native American defendant was charged with killing a bald
eagle. The government argued that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the statute and
regulations at issue. The court disagreed, reasoning that the fact that the defendant had been
charged with a crime was sufficient to provide the defendant with standing. 60
Here, there is no argument by the government that Defendants lack standing. Instead, the
issue is whether Defendants can meet their burden under RFRA by demonstrating that their
sincerely held religious beliefs have been substantially burdened. Defendants argument
confuses the two issues. The fact that Defendants have standing to assert a RFRA defense does
not relieve them of proving entitlement to relief under that defense by showing that their
sincerely held religious beliefs have been substantially burdened.
Gonzales illustrates this point. The defendant in that case challenged regulations
allowing an applicant to seek a permit to take an eagle. The court concluded that the defendant
had standing to challenge these regulations, both as applied and facially, even though he had not
engaged in the application process. Having found that the defendant had standing, the court
went on to find that the regulations at issue imposed a substantial burden. The court so found,
not because the defendant had been prosecuted, but because the application regulations required
him to disclose confidential information that was sacred to him. 61
59
957 F. Supp. 1225 (D. N.M. 1997).
60
Id. at 1227.
61
Id. at 1228.
16
The cases relied upon by Defendant John Wayman do not compel a different conclusion.
In United States v. Boyll, 62 the court concluded that a regulation restricting the defendants use of
peyote would substantially burden his sincerely held religious beliefs because of the importance
peyote played in the religion practiced by the defendant. 63 United States v. Abeyta, 64 involved a
case where the defendant had killed a golden eagle to procure its feathers for use in a religious
ceremony. In that case, it was clear that Abeytas killing of a golden eagle was an act of
religious belief. 65 By prohibiting him from taking an eagle, the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act interfered with the defendants ability to practice his religion. Thus, his conduct
could only be punished if the government demonstrates that such an application of the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act will advance a compelling governmental interest and that the act
embodies the least restrictive means by which the government interest can be vindicated. 66
Nothing in these cases suggests that the mere fact that the defendants were being prosecuted was
sufficient to meet their burden of showing their sincerely held religious beliefs were substantially
burdened.
b.
Effect on Others
Defendants next emphasize the effect the SNAP statutes and regulations have on FLDS
members generally, including co-Defendants, unindicted co-conspirators, and family members.
But, again, this is not the relevant inquiry. RFRA states that the Government shall not
62
774 F. Supp. 1333 (D. N.M. 1991).
63
Id. at 1341.
64
632 F. Supp. 1301 (D. N.M. 1986).
65
Id. at 1307.
66
Id.
17
substantially burden a persons exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of
general applicability. 67 A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of
this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain
appropriate relief against a government. 68 Just as the Court must make a focused inquiry on the
governments stated interest, the Court must assess the coercive impact [of] the governments
actions on the individual claimants ability to engage in a religious exercise, as he understands
that exercise and the terms of his faith. 69
In assessing whether there is a substantial burden, the Court must look individually at
each Defendant, not their co-Defendants, unindicted co-conspirators, family members or the
FLDS population as a whole. These Defendants must demonstrate that the SNAP statutes and
regulations substantially burden their sincerely held religious beliefs. 70 Those who are not
substantially burdened by the SNAP statutes and regulations cannot bootstrap their claims onto
those who might be. The fact that the SNAP statutes and regulations may interfere with other
FLDS members religious beliefs is not relevant to the issue before the Court and this Motion is
not the proper place to address those concerns. Unless these Defendants can show how the
SNAP statutes and regulations substantially burden their own exercise of their sincerely held
beliefs, their claim fails.
67
42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(a) (emphasis added).
68
Id. 2000bb-1(c) (emphasis added)
69
Yellowbear, 741 F.3d at 55 (emphasis added).
70
See Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301, 1314 (10th Cir. 2010) ([T]he issue is not
whether the lack of a halal diet that includes meats substantially burdens the religious exercise of
any Muslim practitioner, but whether it substantially burdens Mr. Abdulhaseebs own exercise of
his sincerely held religious beliefs.).
18
c.
Living the Law of Consecration
Defendants contend that the SNAP statutes and regulations will prevent them from living
the Law of Consecration. However, this argument necessarily depends on Defendants receiving
SNAP benefits. If Defendants do not receive SNAP benefits, the SNAP statutes and regulations
preventing the donation of those benefits have no effect on Defendants. They cannot consecrate
what they do not have and nothing in the SNAP statutes and regulations prevent Defendants
from consecrating other property.
Only Defendant Seth Jeffs has presented any evidence that he received SNAP benefits
and donated food received from the use of SNAP benefits. 71 The Court concludes that SNAP
statutes and regulations that would preclude Defendant Seth Jeffs from donating food received
through the use of those benefits would substantially burden his sincerely held beliefs. As such,
they would either prevent participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief
or place substantial pressure on him to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious
belief. Thus, the Court concludes that Defendant Seth Jeffs has met his burden of showing that
his sincerely held religious beliefs are substantially burdened by the SNAP statutes and
regulations. 72
The other Defendants argue that, even though they do not personally receive SNAP
benefits, they are nevertheless substantially burdened by the SNAP statutes and regulations
71
Defendant Winford Barlow states that members of his family are recipients of SNAP
benefits. However, for the reasons discussed, this is not sufficient.
72
The government argues that Defendant Seth Jeffs is likely not eligible to receive SNAP
benefits since he and his family did not disclose that their needs were being met through the
Bishops Storehouse. However, the government has not presented any evidence to support this
position.
19
because they are asserting both a facial challenge and an as applied challenge. A facial
challenge is one that contends the statute is impermissible in all, or at least the vast majority[,]
of its intended applications. 73 Defendants have made no attempt to show that the SNAP
statutes and regulations are forbidden by RFRA in the vast majority of their applications, nor
could they. Therefore, Defendants facial challenge fails.
d.
Teaching the Law of Consecration
Defendants next argue that the SNAP statutes and regulations substantially burden their
ability to teach and preach the Law of Consecration. Defendants have stated that they have a
sincere belief in not only living the Law of Consecration, but also in teaching it to others. This
teaching takes different forms, depending on their role in the community. While some, such as a
Bishop, may teach the importance of the Law of Consecration to a large congregation, others
may be limited to teaching that principle to their immediate family members. Regardless of how
this teaching is done, the Court concludes that all Defendants, with the exception of Lyle Jeffs as
discussed, have a sincerely held belief that requires them to teach the Law of Consecration in
some form or another.
As a result, the Court must consider whether the SNAP statutes and regulations impose a
substantial burden on Defendants ability to teach the Law of Consecration. Not every burden is
a substantial one. 74 As stated, a government act imposes a substantial burden if it: (1) requires
73
Friday, 525 F.3d at 951 (quoting Doctor Johns Inc. v. City of Roy, 465 F.3d 1150,
1157 n.5 (10th Cir. 2006)).
74
See Abdulhaseeb, 600 F.3d at 1321 (We are not willing to conclude, however, that
every single presentation of a meal an inmate considers impermissible constitutes a substantial
20
participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief, (2) prevents

participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, or (3) places substantial
pressure on an adherent to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious belief. 75 In
making this determination, the Court looks to the intensity of the coercion applied by the
government to act contrary to those beliefs. 76 While the SNAP statutes and regulations may
impose some burden on Defendants with respect to teaching the Law of Consecration, the Court
cannot conclude that any such burden is substantial.
Nothing in the SNAP statutes and regulations require Defendants to participate in activity
prohibited by their sincerely held religious beliefs. Further, nothing in the SNAP statutes and
regulations specifically prevent Defendants from teaching the Law of Consecration, nor do they
place substantial pressure on Defendants to not teach the Law of Consecration. At most, the
SNAP statutes and regulations would prevent Defendants from discussing a limited range of
government benefits when teaching the Law of Consecration. The government acknowledges
that Defendants can teach the Law of Consecration without risking prosecution if they do not
mention SNAP benefits. 77 The Court cannot conclude that this slight limitation on conduct
presents a substantial burden.
burden on an inmates religious exercise.); Friday, 525 F.3d at 947 (We are skeptical that the
bare requirement of obtaining a permit can be regarded as a substantial burden under RFRA, at
least in this case.).
75
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 723 F.3d at 1138.
76
Id. at 1137.
77
Docket No. 458, at 10. Defendant John Wayman argues that he is being prosecuted
even though he did not preach specifically about SNAP benefits. This argument, however,
ignores the other allegations against him in the Indictment. See Docket No. 1 16, 32.
21
This situation is distinguishable from Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, a case relied upon by

Defendants. In that case, a Muslim prisoner argued that denial of a halal diet substantially
burdened his sincerely held religious beliefs. The plaintiff was presented with a Hobsons
choice: either he eats a non-halal diet in violation of his sincerely held beliefs, or he does not
eat. 78 The court found this sufficient to survive summary judgment. The failure to provide a
halal diet either prevents Mr. Abdulhaseebs religious exercise, or, at the least, places substantial
pressure on Mr. Abdulhaseeb not to engage in his religious exercise. 79
The same cannot be said here. Defendants are not prevented from teaching the Law of
Consecration. Defendants retain the right and ability to so teach, though their ability to do so
with specific reference to SNAP benefits may be somewhat limited. But [i]t is one thing to
curtail various ways of expressing belief, for which alternative ways of expressing belief may be
found. It is another thing to require a believer to defile himself, according to the believers
conscience, by doing something that is completely forbidden by the believers religion. 80 At
most, the SNAP statutes and regulations curtail various ways in which Defendants can express
their beliefs, leaving open other methods of expressing those beliefs. 81 Thus, Defendants have
not shown that their sincerely held religious beliefs related to teaching the Law of Consecration
are substantially burdened by the SNAP statutes and regulations.
e.
Other Potential Burdens
78
Abdulhaseeb, 600 F.3d at 1317.
79
Id.
80
Id. (quoting Beerheide v. Suthers, 286 F.3d 1179, 1192 (10th Cir. 2002)).
81
See, e.g., Henderson v. Kennedy, 253 F.3d 12, 1617 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (finding no
substantial burden where alternative means were available to spread religious groups message).
22
In addition to these four primary arguments, four other arguments are worthy of brief
discussion. First, Defendant Lyle Jeffs argues that he may suffer consequences should he ignore
the directives of Warren Jeffs. However, RFRA is concerned with governmental action. Thus,
the harm Defendants may suffer as a result of hypothetical disobedience to Warren Jeffs is
irrelevant.
Second, Defendant Hyrum Dutson argues that [i]f faithful members did not donate all
they have there would . . . not be enough in the Community Storehouse to meet the needs of the
members. Therefore, I would not be able to live off of what I receive from the Community
Storehouse and would have to seek sustenance elsewhere, which would make me unworthy in
my religious commitments to the United Order and the FLDS faith, and hinder my eternal
salvation. 82 This argument is not supported by any evidence. It is unclear what effect, if any,
prohibiting FLDS members from donating food received from SNAP benefits will have on
others. After all, the food that would have been donated will be consumed in the home, reducing
the demand on the Bishops Storehouse, allowing Defendant Dutson and others like him to
continue receiving goods from the Storehouse in accordance with their beliefs.
Third, Defendant Winford Barlow argues that if the government prohibits SNAP
beneficiaries from using their SNAP cards at Meadowayne Dairy, where he works, it would
negatively affect his ability to consecrate his time to the Dairy. The Court is unaware of any
request by the government to limit where SNAP recipients might use their cards. Even if the
government was seeking such a limitation, it is difficult to see how this would substantially
82
Docket No. 665, 9.
23
burden Defendant Barlows ability to work at the Dairy. He remains free to consecrate his time
as he sees fit.
Finally, Defendant Seth Jeffs argues that his ability to work at the Storehouse would be
substantially burdened by the SNAP statutes and regulations. However, nothing in the statutes
and regulations would interfere with any Defendants ability to work at the Storehouse.
Defendant Seth Jeffs retains the ability to dedicate his labors to the Storehouse.
4.
Compelling Interest
Since Seth Jeffs has met his burden, the burden shifts to the government to show that the
challenged action is justified as the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling
governmental interest.
The compelling interest at issue here is found in the Congressional declaration of policy
set out in 7 U.S.C. 2011.
It is declared to be the policy of Congress, in order to promote the general
welfare, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nations population by
raising levels of nutrition among low-income households. Congress finds that the
limited food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger
and malnutrition among members of such households. Congress further finds that
increased utilization of food in establishing and maintaining adequate national
levels of nutrition will promote the distribution in a beneficial manner of the
Nations agricultural abundance and will strengthen the Nations agricultural
economy, as well as result in more orderly marketing and distribution of foods.
To alleviate such hunger and malnutrition, a supplemental nutrition assistance
program is herein authorized which will permit low-income households to obtain
a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food
purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation. 83
To accomplish the goal of alleviating hunger and malnutrition among low-income
households, an allotment is issued to eligible households to provide that household the
83
7 U.S.C. 2011.
24
opportunity to obtain a more nutritious diet. 84 This allotment is then to be used by the
household to purchase food from approved retail stores. 85
Participation in SNAP is limited to those households whose incomes and other financial
resources, held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in
permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet. 86 Eligibility is based on the concept of the
household. Generally, a household is defined as those individuals who live together and
customarily purchase food and prepare meals together for home consumption. 87 However,
Congress has expanded the definition of household to include certain people who live in group
settings. 88
These limited exceptions to SNAP ineligibility of residents of institutions and
boarding houses reflect Congressional intent in protecting taxpayer investment in
SNAP, such that SNAP benefits are issued to and benefit only those who are truly
needy, while also serving low-income populations with special needs, such as the
elderly, homeless, individuals with disabilities or drug dependencies, and victims
of domestic violence. 89
Despite this limited expansion of the definition of household, neither Congress nor the USDA
has permitted non-eligible individuals to receive or make use of anothers SNAP benefits. 90
Strict adherence to the concept of the household is vital in SNAP because it is a
foundation principle for SNAP. Household composition must be determined correctly in order to
84
Id. 2013(a).
85
Id.
86
Id. 2014(a).
87
Id. 2012(m)(1)(B).
88
Id. 2012(m)(5).
89
90
Docket No. 661, at 128:1622.
25
determine eligibility for SNAP and the correct benefit allotments. 91 Another important aspect
of the SNAP program is how benefits are to be used. Under the statutes and regulations, SNAP
benefits are to be used only to purchase eligible food. 92 As stated, the government contends that
these statutes and regulations prohibit SNAP recipients from donating food received through the
use of SNAP benefits.
Defendants do not appear to take issue with the governments general interests in
increasing the purchasing power for needy individuals and preventing fraud and abuse. 93
However, as Defendants correctly point out, it is not enough for the government to support its
action using mere generalities. RFRA demands a more focused inquiry. 94 RFRA requires the
Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of
the challenged law to the personthe particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is
being substantially burdened. 95 The Court must look[] beyond broadly formulated interests
and scrutinize[] the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious
91
92
7 U.S.C. 2013(a) (The benefits so received by such households shall be used only to
purchase food from retail food stores which have been approved for participation in the
supplemental nutrition assistance program.); id. 2016(b) (Benefits issued to eligible
households shall be used by them only to purchase food from retail food stores which have been
approved for participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program at prices prevailing
in such stores.); 7 C.F.R. 274.7(a) (Program benefits may be used only by the household, or
other persons the household selects, to purchase eligible food for the household . . . .).
93
Docket No. 625, at 18 (Lyle Jeffs takes no umbrage with the general principles of
feeding people and preventing fraud as a compelling interest.); Docket No. 674, at 5 (Seth
Jeffs concedes the government can show a compelling interest in the determination of a
household and who receives SNAP benefits.).
94
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430
95
Id. at 43031 (quoting 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(b)).
(2006).
26
claimants. 96 Put simply, we must examine both sides of the ledger on the same case-specific
level of generality: asking whether the governments particular interest in burdening this
[defendants] particular religious exercise is justified in light of the record in this case. 97
Defendants make a number of arguments in support of their claim that the governments
stated interests are not compelling as applied to them. Defendants first argue that the
governments interests are not compelling because consecrating food obtained using SNAP
benefits does not violate the SNAP statutes and regulations. In support, Defendants point to the
testimony of Jeffrey Cohen, Deputy Associate Administrator for SNAP. Mr. Cohen testified at
the evidentiary hearing that there was no specific statute or regulation that addressed the
donation of food obtained through the use of SNAP benefits. Based on this, Defendants argue
that there is no statute or regulation that has been violated by the conduct alleged. This argument
fails for two reasons.
First, Defendants oversimplify Mr. Cohens testimony. It is true that Mr. Cohen testified
that there was no specific statute or regulation that addressed donating food received through the
use of SNAP benefits. However, the fact that there is no specific statute or regulation dealing
with donating food does not mean that there is no statute or regulation at issue. As set forth
above, and testified to by Mr. Cohen, the regulations require SNAP benefits to be used to
purchase foods to be used by the household. 98 Mr. Cohen stated that wholesale donation of
foods received using SNAP benefits would violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the SNAP
96
Id. at 431.
97
98
Docket No. 661, at 129: 719, 151:1113; 7 U.S.C. 2013(a), 2016(a); 7 C.F.R.
274.7(a).
27
statutes and regulations. 99 The reason there is no more specific regulation on donating food,
according to Mr. Cohen, is that there have been no instances worthy of further regulations on this
issue. 100 While bringing SNAP-acquired food to a neighborhood potluck would likely not cause
any issues, more systematic donations, such as those alleged here, will raise some questions. 101
Second, the statutes and regulations need not address the specific conduct at issue in this
case. 102 The statutes and regulations set out approved conduct and prohibit contrary conduct. 103
Thus, the fact that there is no specific statute or regulation that would prohibit the donation of
food obtained through the use of SNAP benefits does not resolve this Motion.
Defendants also argue that the governments interests are not compelling because the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not regulate the conduct of SNAP
recipients post-purchase. This argument, however, ignores the testimony of Mr. Cohen and the
regulations set forth above requiring SNAP benefits to be used to purchase foods for the
household. Further, if SNAP recipients do not keep and consume the food purchased through the
use of their benefits, the goals of the program would clearly be frustrated.
Defendants also argue that the governments interest is not compelling because, rather
than interfering with the governments interests, allowing FLDS members to donate food
received from the use of those benefits would actually better serve the governments interests.
Under the Law of Consecration, FLDS SNAP benefit holders pool their benefit resources, buy
99
Docket No. 661, at 154:522.
100
Id. at 130:18, 148:1422.
101
Id. at 130:8.
102
United States v. Salazar, 720 F.2d 1482, 148485 (10th Cir. 1983).
103
Id. at 1485; see also 7 U.S.C. 2024(b), (c).
28
in bulk, have more food, and feed more people, SNAP benefit holders and non-eligible
individuals alike. 104 In this scenario, the Governments compelling interest is actually
realized when FLDS members religious dictates are allowed to occur. 105
Mr. Cohen acknowledged that there may be a case where, because of bulk purchasing,
a household is getting more than what they would have otherwise gotten. 106 Unfortunately for
Defendants, this imagined scenario lacks any factual support. Indeed, the evidence presented
reveals that reality was just the opposite. The government has presented evidence showing
shortages at the Bishops Storehouse, and there is evidence directly linking those shortages to the
fact that non-eligible individuals were given items obtained from the use of SNAP benefits.
For example, in her Declaration, Sheryl Barlow stated:
The shortage of food related primarily to the fact that food stamps constituted the
major funding source for the Storehouse. However, in addition to food stamp
recipients, the Storehouse supplied individuals who were not food stamp
beneficiaries. Therefore insufficient resources existed to support the large
number of people relying on the Storehouse. 107
Allene Steed similarly stated that the shortages were caused, at least in part, because non-eligible
individuals were making use of food obtained through SNAP benefits. 108
Defendants further argue that the governments purported interest in raising levels of
nutrition among low-income households is not compelling because it has not been pursued
uniformly. In support, Defendants point out that the USDA places few restrictions on the food
104
Docket No. 625, at 20.
105
106
Docket No. 661, at 141:1214.
107
108
Id. Ex. 3 7 (Because not all [United Order] members received SNAP benefits, there
were not sufficient resources to provide food for all [United Order] members.).
29
items that can be purchased by using SNAP benefits. Thus, SNAP recipients can use their
benefits to buy unhealthy food, frustrating the governments interest in providing for a more
nutritious diet. While there are few limitations on what food can be purchased using SNAP
benefits, there is a stark difference between what the USDA has allowed and what Defendants
seek. It is one thing to buy unhealthy food that is ultimately consumed by the household. It is
quite another to buy food, give it away, and hope that at least some makes its way back. Rather
than seeking the ability to buy certain items, Defendants seek the ability to allow wholesale
donation of food received through SNAP benefits and to allow non-eligible individuals to share
the benefits received by SNAP beneficiaries. The USDA has never permitted such activities.
Thus, this argument fails. 109 Accordingly, the government has shown that it has a compelling
interest in limiting the use of SNAP benefits to the purchase of food to be used by the household.
5.
Least Restrictive Means
Having determined that the government has a compelling interest, the next question is
whether the SNAP statutes and regulations are the least restrictive means of furthering that
interest. [T]he governments burden is two-fold: it must support its choice of regulation, and it
must refute the alternative schemes offered by the challenger. 110 The government need not
refute every conceivable option in order to satisfy the least restrictive means prong of
109
Yellowbear, 741 F.3d at 61 (A government can rebut an argument from

underinclusion by showing that it hasnt acted in a logically inconsistent wayby (say)
identifying a qualitative or quantitative difference between the particular religious exemption
requested and other secular exceptions already tolerated, and then explaining how such
differential treatment furthers some distinct compelling governmental concern.).
110
Wilgus, 638 F.3d at 1289.
30
RFRA. 111 Instead, to successfully refute the alternative schemes offered by Defendants, the
government must demonstrate the claimants alternatives are ineffective to achieve the
governments stated goals. 112
The governments choice of regulation is supported for the reasons set forth above.
Limiting the use of SNAP benefits to purchase food to be used by the household promotes the
governments interests in providing food to needy individuals while combatting fraud and abuse.
Thus, the Court must consider the alternative schemes offered by Defendants.
Defendant Lyle Jeffs proposed accommodation has four elements: (1) allow FLDS
members who have legally obtained SNAP benefits to donate the food they obtain from these
benefits to the Bishops Storehouse or consecrate the SNAP benefits to the Storehouse for the
express purpose of purchasing food; (2) allow FLDS members who have legally obtained SNAP
benefits to permit an authorized representative to manage their SNAP benefits, with the express
requirement that those benefits only be used to purchase food; (3) allow FLDS members or their
authorized representative to pool their benefits to purchase bulk food items; and (4) allow FLDS
members who are not eligible to receive SNAP benefits to receive a portion of a SNAP benefit
holders food during distribution from the Bishops Storehouse. 113
Defendants proposed alternative suffers from at least two flaws. First, by allowing
SNAP recipients to donate either their food or their benefits, Defendants scheme would
111
Id. (quoting Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1556 (8th Cir. 1996)).
112
113
Docket No. 625, at 2122. Defendant Wayman offers a similar alternative that would
allow FLDS members to combine both SNAP and non-SNAP resources. See Docket No. 664, at
14. Defendant Seth Jeffs raises a number of questions on what SNAP administrators could have
done differently, but none of these questions demonstrate a less restrictive means. See Docket
No. 628, at 7.
31
necessarily interfere with SNAP benefits being used to purchase foods to be used by the
household. While Defendants propose allowing the pooling of benefits to purchase bulk food
items, there is no evidence that this would increase available food. As discussed, the evidence
presented in this case shows that the previous pooling of benefits resulted in a reduction of food,
not a surplus.
Second, Defendants scheme fails to promote the governments interests because it
allows non-eligible individuals to receive food purchased through the use of SNAP benefits. As
set forth above, SNAP was created to provide funds to truly needy individuals to purchase food
for their household. Extending the program to those who have no such need will frustrate the
underlying purpose of a governmental program with limited funds. As Mr. Cohen stated at the
hearing, none of the accommodations made by Congress allow non-eligible individuals to make
use of SNAP benefits. 114
Defendants argue that certain elements of their proposed accommodation are either
allowed by the USDA or not expressly precluded. Defendants rely heavily on accommodations
made in group home settings. In those settings, a resident may permit an authorized agent to
purchase food for the household. Defendants argue that the authorized representative could pool
the SNAP benefits of multiple residents to buy in bulk. However, the regulations make clear,
that group living arrangements which act as authorized representatives for residents of the
114
Docket No. 661, at 128:1622.
32
facilities must use food stamp benefits for food prepared and served to those residents
participating in the Food Stamp Program. 115
Defendants are correct that group homes need not prepare two meals: one with food
obtained through SNAP benefits and one without. This may lead, in certain circumstances, to
non-eligible individuals consuming food that was obtained through SNAP benefits. This sort of
incidental sharing has not been a concern for USDA. But, importantly, this is not what
Defendants are proposing. Defendants request an ability to donate food wholesale, without
regard to eligibility, to then be consumed by individuals determined worthy by the Bishop.
Defendants proposal would fail to account for the assets of the entire community and, in that
way, would further frustrate the governments stated purpose. 116 Moreover, these group living
arrangements must go through an application process and are highly regulated. 117 Defendants
proposal contains insufficient safeguards to ensure that SNAP recipients obtain their proper
allotment.
Having refuted the alternative schemes offered by Defendants, the Court concludes that
the government has met its burden of demonstrating that the SNAP statutes and regulations are
the least restrictive means of achieving its compelling interests. Therefore, Defendants Motion
to dismiss under RFRA will be denied.
115
7 C.F.R. 273.2(n)(3); see also 45 Fed. Reg. 23288, 23290 (Apr. 4, 1980) ([E]ach
residents food stamps must be used for meals intended for that resident.); Docket No. 661, at
128:912 (But there is a responsibility of the home or institution, whatever it may be, to make
sure that those benefits are used in a way that the food goes to the individual who has contributed
those benefits.).
116
Docket No. 661, at 157:21158:5. Defendants reliance on the accommodation made

for some Alaskans fails for many of the same reasons.
117
Docket No. 458 30; Docket No. 616, at 155:11156:1.
33
B.
FIRST AMENDMENT
In addition to their RFRA claim, Defendants also argue that the SNAP statutes and
regulations violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment states, in pertinent part: Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 118 In resolving challenges
under the Free Exercise clause, the Court looks at neutrality and general applicability. [A] law
that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental
interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice. 119
Thus, a law that is both neutral and generally applicable need only be rationally related to a
legitimate governmental interest to survive a constitutional challenge. 120 On the other hand, if
a law that burdens a religious practice is not neutral or generally applicable, it is subject to strict
scrutiny, and the burden on religious conduct violates the Free Exercise Clause unless it is
narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest. 121
Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and . . . failure to satisfy one
requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied. A law failing to satisfy
these requirements must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be
narrowly tailored to advance that interest. 122 A law is neutral so long as its object is something
118
U.S. Const. amend 1.
119
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1993).
120
Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 649 (10th Cir.
121
Id.
122
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., 508 U.S. at 53132.
2006).
34
other than the infringement or restriction of religious practices. 123 Facial neutrality is not
determinative. 124 The Free Exercise clause forbids subtle departures from neutrality and
covert suppression of particular religious beliefs. 125
Defendants concede that the SNAP statutes and regulations are facially neutral. Further,
Defendants do not appear to argue that the provisions covertly target their religious beliefs.
There is no evidence that the SNAP statutes and regulations were enacted or modified to target
the practice of FLDS members of donating their possessions. Thus, this case is distinguishable
from Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., where the Court found that [t]he record in this
case compels the conclusion that suppression of the central element of the Santeria worship
service was the object of the ordinances. 126 The ordinances there had as their object the
suppression of religion. 127 There is no similar evidence in the record in this case. Instead, the
evidence shows that Congress has carefully limited the definition of household in an effort to
accomplish its stated goal of permitting low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet
by increasing their food purchasing power.
Thus, the Court must consider whether the SNAP statutes and regulations are generally
applicable. Here, it is clear that they are. The statutes and regulations apply to all who receive
SNAP benefits, without regard to their religious beliefs. While Congress has created certain
exceptions to the definition of household, none of those exceptions are based on the recipients
123
Grace United, 451 F.3d at 64950.
124
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., 508 U.S. at 534.
125
Id. (quotation marks omitted).
126
Id.
127
Id. at 542.
35
religious beliefs. Instead, those exceptions were made to ensure that the most vulnerable
individuals have access to SNAP benefits, even when they do not reside in a traditional
setting. 128 Defendants argue that [t]he present action applies the SNAP fraud prohibition
specifically and discriminatorily against FLDS members while simultaneously allowing other
groups to engage in similar communal-type living without federal prosecution. 129 However, as
set forth above, Defendants factual premise is incorrect. None of the exceptions created by
Congress allow non-eligible individuals to make use of an eligible individuals SNAP benefits.
Defendants also argue that selective enforcement can invalidate an otherwise facially
neutral statute. Defendants appear to argue that they have been targeted because of their
religious beliefs. However, they fail to provide any factual support for this argument. Without
more, Defendants cannot prevail on their selective enforcement claim.
As the SNAP statute and regulations are neutral and generally applicable, they need only
be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest to survive a constitutional challenge.
For the same reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the SNAP statutes and regulations
are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Therefore, Defendants claim under
the First Amendment fails.
128
129
36
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Docket No. 269) is
DENIED. The time from the filing of the Motion through the date of this Order is excluded from
the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(D).
DATED this 15th day of November, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
37

Order Denying Defendants' Motion To Dismiss RFRA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Order Denying Defendants' Motion To Dismiss RFRA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 37

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

Case No. 2:16-CR-82 TS

District Judge Ted Stewart

THE FLDS CHURCH

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 37

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 37

The definition of eligible household is important to the administration of the program

Docket No. 458 Ex. 7 1825.

7 C.F.R. 274.7(a); see also id. 278.2(a) (Coupons may be accepted by an

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 4 of 37

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 5 of 37

Quaintance, 608 F.3d at 719.

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 6 of 37

United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475, 1482 (10th Cir. 1996).

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 7 of 37

certain accoutrements of religion, including the presence of a founder or prophet, important

Docket No. 661, at 72:1723.

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 8 of 37

Meyers, 95 F.3d at 1482.

Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48, 54 (10th Cir. 2014).

Yellowbear, 741 F.3d at 54.

Quaintance, 608 F.3d at 722.

Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2012).

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 9 of 37

290 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2002).

84 F.3d 1549 (9th Cir. 1996).

Guerrero, 290 F.3d at 122223; Bauer, 84 F.3d at 1559.

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 10 of 37

Docket No. 661, at 68:1269:16.

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 11 of 37

Docket No. 458 Ex. 6 13.

Id. Ex. 6 14.

Id. Ex. 6 13.

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 12 of 37

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 13 of 37

535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008).

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 14 of 37

406 U.S. 205 (1976).

See 42 U.S.C. 2000bb(b)(1).

Yoder, 406 U.S. at 20708.

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 15 of 37

525 F.3d 938 (10th Cir. 2008).

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 16 of 37

957 F. Supp. 1225 (D. N.M. 1997).

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 17 of 37

774 F. Supp. 1333 (D. N.M. 1991).

632 F. Supp. 1301 (D. N.M. 1986).

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 18 of 37

42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(a) (emphasis added).

Id. 2000bb-1(c) (emphasis added)

Yellowbear, 741 F.3d at 55 (emphasis added).

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 19 of 37

Living the Law of Consecration

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 20 of 37

Teaching the Law of Consecration

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 21 of 37

participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief, (2) prevents

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 723 F.3d at 1138.

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 695 Filed 11/15/16 Page 22 of 37

This situation is distinguishable from Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, a case relied upon by

Other Potential Burdens