In St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28072 (ND Ill., Nov 11, 2005), the federal district court reject challenges under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA to Illinois' O'Hare Modernization Act (OMA). The challenged section amended the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act to provide that "nothing in this act limits the authority of the City of Chicago to exercise its powers under the O'Hare Modernization Act for the purposes of relocation of cemeteries or the graves located therein."
The court held that the OMA is a neutral and generally applicable law. It concluded that the provision is "rationally related to the legitimate government objective of expanding and improving O'Hare. To be sure, the passage of §30 was an inartful way to anticipate (and head-off) attempts to use the Illinois RFRA to block O'Hare expansion. Nevertheless, it is clear that the provision was not enacted to single out cemeteries for invidious treatment, but rather to preclude the argument that any cemetery would be entitled to more favorable treatment than other properties in the path of O'Hare expansion." The court also rejected plaintiffs' RLUIPA challenge, finding that the city's authority to acquire land for the airport expansion is not a land use regulation. It also rejected plaintiffs' equal protection claim.
Yesterday's Chicago Sun Times reported on the decision, pointing out that additional litigation over the O'Hare expansion is pending in the D.C. Circuit. (See related prior posting.)
