Church's Challenge to Fire Code Applicability Triggers Strict Scrutiny

 In Pool v. Dad's Place of Bryan, Ohio, (OH App., Nov. 21, 2025), an Ohio state appellate court remanded to the trial court a church's suit seeking an injunction against subjecting it to Ohio's fire code requirements for residential buildings. The city contends that the church's overnight ministry constitutes use of the building for "residential" as well as "assembly" purposes because the building is used in part for "sleeping purposes."  Categorizing the building as "residential" would require the church to install a sprinkler system whose cost is beyond the church's financial ability. 

The court said in part:

... [N]ot only has appellant presented undisputed evidence that it cannot afford to open a second location to provide sleeping accommodations, appellant maintains that its religious beliefs require it to welcome the stranger to live among the church, not to operate an offsite homeless shelter.  Moreover, appellant cannot simply relocate to somewhere else in the surrounding area with the appropriate use occupancy.  Because appellant’s ministry involves gatherings for religious worship, during which individuals are permitted to fall asleep, appellee maintains that appellant’s use occupancy is mixed....  Outside of a fire official exercising discretion in favor of appellant, appellant is left with only one option to comply with the fire code: cease permitting individuals to sleep in its premises, which would violate appellant’s religious beliefs....

The lack of objective criteria in the fire code to categorize appellant’s use as residential combined with appellee’s shifting interpretations throughout the matter’s pendency demonstrates that the fire code provisions at issue are not generally applicable....  

... [A]ppellant maintains that it has no intention of creating a homeless shelter, but instead its intention is to provide an overnight ministry in which individuals can pray, engage in fellowship, and listen to scripture, and it would violate its sincerely held religious beliefs to wake individuals who fall asleep during its ministry....  [A]ppellee had to consider the reasons for appellant’s conduct—including its religious reasons—when exercising his discretion to determine that appellant impermissibly changed its use occupancy, and therefore the fire code provisions at issue are not generally applicable.... Accordingly, appellee’s attempted enforcement of the fire code is subject to strict scrutiny under federal constitutional law, and the trial court erred in applying a rational basis review....

Here, appellant opposed the preliminary injunction under both the federal Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause and the Ohio Constitution’s Conscience Clause.... The trial court did not apply a strict scrutiny test as required by Ohio constitutional law, and therefore the trial court neglected to address appellant’s rights under the Ohio Conscience Clause.  

9th Circuit: Requiring Tree Trimming Did Not Violate Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Joseph v. City of San Jose, (9th Cir., Sept. 11, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's claim that enforcement of municipal code restrictions violated his 1st Amendment religious free exercise rights. The court said in part:

Joseph asserts that the City’s assessments against his trees placed a substantial burden on the free exercise of his “religious and spiritual beliefs,” which he describes as having “Buddhist, Taoist, Celtic, quantum physics, evolutionary, neurological, numerological, and cosmological foundations.”  Although “[i]t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants’ interpretations of those creeds,” a court may properly consider “whether the alleged burden imposed by the [challenged state action] is a substantial one.”... We hold that the City’s actions did not create a substantial burden.  Joseph voluntarily complied with the generally applicable municipal code requirements to trim the trees’ overgrown vines, and he stated during his deposition that such trimming did not impair the trees’ spiritual or religious value.... .  “The right to freely exercise one’s religion ... ‘does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’”....

Court Says Center's Food Distribution Is Likely a Religious Exercise Under RLUIPA

In Micah's Way v. City of Santa Ana, (CD CA, June 8, 2023), a California federal district court refused to dismiss a suit by a center that provides aid to impoverished and disabled individuals claiming that the city has violated its rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment by refusing to issue it a Certificate of Occupancy unless it agrees to stop providing food and beverages to its clients. While the center had operated for 5 years without a certificate of occupancy, the city began a concerted effort to get Micah's Way as well as a needle exchange program nearby to move out of the neighborhood after the city's mayor who lived nearby experienced a break-in at his home. The court held that Micah's Way plausibly alleged that its food distribution activities are a "religious exercise" under RLUIPA and that the city has substantially burdened that religious exercise. The court also concluded that plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause. Voice of OC reports on the decision.

Village Sues Church Over Its Homeless Shelter

RNS reports that the affluent Chicago suburb of Village of Orland Park has filed suit against Hope Covenant Church seeking to close down its homeless shelter== the first in the village in over 30 years.  According to RNS:

With temperatures dipping down near the single digits, the seasonal shelter has housed between 15 and 50 people one night every week, including a toddler and local public high school students.

The overnight shelter, the result of a partnership with Illinois’ Beds Plus community organization, is open every Tuesday until April — unless a lawsuit by The Village of Orland Park succeeds in closing it down.

Last week, Village attorneys filed a lawsuit against the church, arguing that the shelter “constitutes an ongoing threat to public health and safety.” The lawsuit cited 28 health and safety code violations caused by the church using the building, which was intended solely for religious services, as an overnight shelter.

Faith-Based Recovery Home Loses Challenges To Fire Code Enforcement

In Affordable Recovery Housing v. City of Blue Island, (ND IL, Sept. 21, 2016), an Illinois federal district court in a 40-page opinion dismissed a claim under RLUIPA and its Illinois counterpart, the 1st and 14th Amendments, as well as under the Fair Housing Amendments Act, brought against the city by a faith-based recovery home for drug and alcohol addicts. At issue was the city's enforcement of its fire code sprinkler system requirement that led to the eviction of 73 men from the facility, and the city refusal to grant an accommodation that would have given the facility 3 years to install a sprinkler system.

The court held that the eviction was pursuant to the fire code, not the zoning code, so RLUIPA does not apply. Moving to the claim under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court then held that the eviction stemming from a delayed enforcement of the fire code and the refusal to grant an accommodation did not impose a substantial burden on the facility's religious exercise and, in any event, the city's enforcement of its sprinkler regulations was in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. The court also rejected the claim that the city violated RLUIPA by demanding that the facility apply for a special use permit.

Court Refuses To Allow Amended Complaint On Building Code Application To Home Bible Study Groups

In Salman v. Phoenix, (D AZ, Jan. 27, 2016), an Arizona federal district court refused to permit an ordained minister who used his home for weekly Bible study meetings  and worship to file a third amended complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief against the city's application of its building code to his activities.