## Facts

- Pastor Richard Wayne Barr operated Philemon Homes, Inc., a nonprofit Christian ministry providing housing, biblical instruction, and counseling to nonviolent ex-offenders transitioning from prison to the community.
- The ministry required residents to affirm Christian beliefs and follow religious rules; daily activities included group prayer and Bible study.
- The City of Sinton enacted a zoning ordinance restricting the location of facilities like Barr’s ministry, including distance-based limits from certain land uses.
- The ordinance prevented continued use of the ministry’s existing homes and, in practical effect, left minimal or no feasible alternative locations within the city.
- After the ordinance, parole authorities withdrew approval for residents, impairing the ministry’s ability to operate.
- The City did not show that the ministry had caused disturbances or harm before the ordinance.

## Issues

1. Whether the zoning ordinance substantially burdened Barr’s free exercise of religion under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA).
2. If so, whether the City proved the ordinance furthered a compelling governmental interest as applied to Barr.
3. Whether the City proved the ordinance was the least restrictive means to further that interest.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
- The Court held the ordinance substantially burdened Barr’s religious exercise because it barred the ministry’s existing operations and effectively excluded the ministry from the city.
- The Court held the City failed to prove a compelling governmental interest as applied to this ministry.
- The Court held the City failed to prove the ordinance was the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling interest.

## Legal Principles

- TRFRA prohibits government action that substantially burdens a person’s free exercise of religion unless the government proves the burden (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
- A “substantial burden” may be shown by a regulation’s practical effect, including when it effectively prevents a religious ministry from operating within the relevant community.
- Zoning and land-use regulations are subject to TRFRA; they are not categorically exempt from statutory strict scrutiny.
- Under TRFRA, generalized safety concerns are insufficient without an applied showing tied to the claimant and the specific burden imposed.
- The government must present evidence of tailoring; broad exclusionary measures that function as a ban are inconsistent with the least-restrictive-means requirement.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court concluded that Sinton’s zoning ordinance imposed a substantial burden on a religious halfway house ministry and could not stand because the City did not establish a compelling interest or least restrictive means under TRFRA, requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings.


Barr v. City of Sinton, 295 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. 2009)