By Tyler Arnold
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jan 15, 2025 / 14:45 pm
A Texas Catholic shelter network defended itself at the state Supreme Court this week against allegations that the nonprofit unlawfully harbors “aliens” who entered the country illegally.
Annunciation House, which has operated along the southern U.S. border for nearly 50 years, asked the Texas Supreme Court on Jan. 13 to block Attorney General Ken Paxton’s effort to shut down the organization over the alleged violations. The shelter network contends it has never violated state law and accuses the attorney general’s office of curtailing its religious mission of caring for those in need.
Several justices on the nine-member court appeared skeptical of the attorney general’s claims and expressed religious liberty concerns. Paxton is Republican, as are all nine of the justices.
Lawyers debate ‘harboring’ allegation
Ryan Baasch, who represented the attorney general’s office, told the justices that Annunciation House “is not immunized because of its religion” and that the nonprofit cannot claim religious liberty protections if it violates Texas laws that prohibit alien harboring.
“Annunciation House’s purpose is to shelter illegally present aliens,” Baasch contended. “That distinguishes them from a service provider that serves all indiscriminately.”
Baasch alleged that Annunciation House “takes active measures to hamper law enforcement,” but when pressed to provide specifics, he simply cited examples of when the Catholic network refused entry to police “because they didn’t have a warrant.”
Although one of the justices noted that the Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless searches in most cases, Baasch said the shelters “are essentially open to the public at large” and asserted they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
“They don’t have a right to demand a warrant when they let any alien in indiscriminately, including illegally present ones,” Baasch claimed. “Those are criminals under the federal code. If you enter illegally, that’s a crime under the federal code. They let them in indiscriminately. They don’t let law enforcement in.”
Amy Warr, who represented Annunciation House, accused the attorney general’s office of using “rhetoric” that is inconsistent with the facts in the case. She said that most of the people who are helped by Annunciation House are brought by law enforcement and that police can enter if they present a warrant.
“We are not concealing anyone [or] hiding anyone from detection from law enforcement,” Warr told the justices.
“Everyone in El Paso, including law enforcement, knows that we are there and [knows] what we do … as part of our mission, that we house undocumented people and, principally, documented people — people brought to us by federal law enforcement authorities,” Warr said.
Warr argued that “most of the people we house are documented,” adding: “Most of the people who we house are brought to us by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] after they have processed them and they need a place to stay.”
Justices consider religious liberty concerns
The justices pressed Baasch on their religious liberty concerns early into his testimony and asked him questions about whether caring for migrants constitutes protected religious activity.
“Do you disagree that this is religious activity?” Justice Debra Lehrmann, who was appointed by former Gov. Rick Perry, asked Baasch.
(Story continues below)
“It may be,” Baasch responded. “And then there’s going to be a question of whether the activity at issue here substantially burdens the religious activity.”
Justice Jeff Boyd, another Perry appointee, chimed in to question how it could not be a substantial burden, adding: “I think you want to shut it down.”
Baasch contended that the attorney general’s office needs to shut down Annunciation House’s operations because otherwise “there’s absolutely no deterrent effect.”
“If organizations know that they can engage in this activity and that the worst that’s going to happen is they get [told to stop], nothing stops them from engaging in the activity in the first instance,” Baasch said.
Baasch asserted that there is not a substantial religious liberty burden because Annunciation House could live out their faith without providing assistance to migrants who are in the country illegally.
“If it’s an exercise of their religion to be serving the needy [and] clothing the poor … well they can do that for [United States] citizens [and] they can do that for legally present aliens,” Baasch said. “All the alien harboring ban says is that you can’t do that for illegally present aliens. So I think the burden would be very minor if anything at all.”
Warr, who called Annunciation House “an established ministry of the Catholic Church,” said all of the legal procedures initiated by the attorney general’s office have violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
“The whole scheme is invalid facially under the First Amendment,” she said.
Elizabeth Kiernan, a lawyer for First Liberty Institute, also provided arguments to the court. First Liberty Institute, which advocates religious freedom, filed a brief with the court against a forced closure of Annunciation House.
Kiernan said the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act “protects this religious charity against outright closure.”
When asked about Baasch’s claim that Annunciation House could serve those in need without focusing on migrants, she compared the nonprofit’s focus on one subset to the Church having “different monastic orders devoted to different subsets of the poor, serving different charities.”
“Annunciation House answered the Gospel of Matthew’s call to care for the least of these in the service of Christ,” Kiernan said. “The Catholic Church has claimed Annunciation House as one of its own and Annunciation House’s founder testified that its acts of charity are motivated by its Catholic faith.”
In July, a district court threw out the attorney general’s lawsuit against Annunciation House. This led the attorney general’s office to appeal the case to the Texas Supreme Court.
