In Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, (2d Cir., April 5, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that neither the organizational nor the individual plaintiffs had standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to the Village's 2019 zoning law applicable to places of worship. According to the court:
... [A]t the urging of the Orthodox Jewish Coalition of Chestnut Ridge ..., the Village began the process of amending its zoning laws so that places of worship could more easily be built in Village neighborhoods, accommodating the need of Orthodox Jewish observers “to pray within walking distance of their homes.”...
In sum, even if it could be argued that the challenged law improperly promotes religion, Plaintiffs point to no cognizable harm that is actual or imminent. They claim that the Village spent tax money in passing the law yet fail to allege how those funds were anything more than a routine use of the Village’s planning budget.... They claim that they will be directly exposed to newly authorized religious structures without asserting that they have even seen one of those structures or when and where they might ever do so in the future. And while they contend that the law denies them the same opportunity as religious groups to host large gatherings, they do not assert that they have any particular interest in holding such events.... Ultimately, even if Plaintiffs have a sincere objection to the challenged law, our Article III standing doctrine requires them to first establish a real stake in their challenge before bringing it in federal court.
