Legal and practical concerns raised as Fort Worth residents contest proposed offender residency restrictions

Richard Gladden, an attorney with roughly 25 years’ experience in criminal and municipal law, told the Fort Worth City Council that the draft offender residency restriction ordinance contains two legal defects that could make it invalid. "Under Texas law, district court judges have exclusive authority to determine where people on probation reside," Gladden said, adding the draft lacks an exemption for people under court-ordered residency. He also cited the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Barr v. City of Sinton as reasons the ordinance could not bar residency in religiously affiliated transitional homes.

Gladden said he delivered a demand letter to the city and warned he expected litigation if the ordinance moves forward as drafted. He urged the council to reconsider language that could override state supervision decisions.

Sean Braun, a Tarrant County resident and licensed offender treatment provider, told the council the ordinance rests on incorrect assumptions about risk and proximity. "People that commit sexual offenses are actually one of the groups that have the lowest recidivism rates, ranging anywhere from about 13 to 14 percent," Braun said, and added that most offenses are committed by acquaintances, not strangers near parks or schools. Braun recommended focusing on treatment, stable housing and employment to reduce reoffense risk rather than broad geographic exclusions.

Jerry Puckett, a Fort Worth resident and housing provider working with faith-based residential placements, said the ordinance had changed materially since it was posted and that those revisions had not clarified how people or providers would determine compliance. "As of tonight, there's still no authoritative map, no operational guidance, and no clear method for providers, parole officers, or residents to verify compliance even though the ordinance purports immediate enforcement," Puckett said, warning that immediate enforcement without guidance would create harm for placements already approved by state supervision.

Those public comments leave the council with three specific, recurring concerns: potential preemption of state court or parole authority, legal exposure under state religious-freedom protections, and the absence of operational tools (maps, guidance, verification processes) needed to carry out enforcement fairly. No formal council action on the ordinance was recorded in the public comment period covered by the transcript.

Next steps noted by multiple speakers were procedural: slow the process, provide clear compliance maps and exemptions for state-supervised placements, and coordinate with state parole and probation authorities before adopting an enforceable municipal restriction.

Authorities referenced during public comments include Article 11, Section 5(a) of the Texas Constitution, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Texas Supreme Court case Barr v. City of Sinton.