U.S. Sues Sterling Heights, Michigan Over Zoning Denial For Mosque

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the city of Sterling Heights, Michigan claiming that the city violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by denying a Special Approval Land Use application that would have allowed construction of a mosque on five adjoining lots in the city.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. City of Sterling Heights, (ED MI, filed 12/15/2016), alleges that this is the only special use application for a house of worship that has been denied by the city since 2006.  The mosque became the subject of opposition framed in anti-Muslim terms, and also became a local election issue especially among local Chaldean Christian business owners. Click On Detroit reports on the lawsuit.

This is the second RLUIPA suit filed this week by the Justice Department over denials of land use permits for a mosque. (See prior posting.)

Feds Bring RLUIPA Suit Against County That Barred Mosque Construction

The U.S. Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed suit against Culpeper County, Virginia alleging that it violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by denying a sewage permit application to the Islamic Center of Culpeper.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. County of Culpeper, VA, (WD VA, filed 12/12/2016) alleges that denial of the"pump and haul" permit prevents the Islamic Center from building a mosque on land it has purchased. The land's zoning classification permits religious land use by right.

Appeals Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit Over Entitlement To Mosque Property

In United Islamic Society v. Masjed Abubakr Al-Seddiq, Inc., (MN App. Aug. 29, 2016), a Minnesota state appellate court affirmed a trial court's refusal to dismiss a suit over ownership of mosque property because "it is premature to decide that resolution of this case will necessarily involve improper government entanglement with religion."  The suit involves a dispute between two non-profit corporations over which one is is the rightful beneficiary of properties held in trust for the benefit of the Rochester, Minnesota Muslim community.  The court said in part:

A determination of whether this case can be resolved using neutral principles of law depends upon a close reading of UIS’s civil complaint and trust petition. In its civil complaint, UIS makes no mention of any religious doctrine and does not request relief for religious reasons. UIS instead requests a determination that it is the intended beneficiary of the trust based on the lease, warranty deeds, meeting minutes, and MAAS resolution....

Defendants argued that because the transfer of the properties to the North American Islamic Trust included a requirement that the properties are to be held in "waqf," the court will need to interpret the meaning of waqf, a religious term, to resolve the dispute.  The appellate court however disagreed, saying:

If the district court declares the declaration of trust valid, there appears to be no reason to interpret or analyze “waqf.” Similarly, if the district court declares the declaration of trust invalid ... a beneficiary determination likely depends on testimony and the documents in the record regarding the parties’ intent, which may include, among others, the warranty deeds that reference “Waqf (Islamic trust).” ...The limited information in the record about “waqf” simply does not suggest that a doctrinal analysis of “waqf” will be necessary to or dispositive of a beneficiary determination.

The court also rejected the argument that the case should be dismissed because of an arbitration clause in the declaration of trust, saying:

Because appellants did not invoke the arbitration clause in the declaration of trust until MAAS and NAIT’s summary-judgment motion, which was filed more than two years after the start of UIS’s civil action and after extensive litigation in both cases, we conclude that the district court’s finding that appellants waived their right to invoke the arbitration clause is not clearly erroneous.

DOJ Sues Township Over Denial of Zoning Variance For Mosque

The U.S. Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed suit against  Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania over the township's denial of a zoning variance to permit Bensalem Masjid to construct a mosque on property near a commercial area.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania, (ED PA, filed July 21, 2016), alleges that the zoning denial violates the substantial burden, equal terms, discrimination and unreasonable limitations provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Washington Times reports on the lawsuit.

Arbitration Clause In Mosque's By-Laws Covers Misappropriation Claims

In Matahen v. Sehwail, (NJ App., March 24, 2016), members of a local mosque sued claiming that defendants (also members of the mosque) misused the mosque's credit card for personal expenses and legal expenses of the mosque's Imam. Plaintiffs also claimed that one of the defendants was improperly maintained on the mosque's health insurance plan after he ceased working for the mosque and his children's school tuition was paid for by the mosque.  A New Jersey state appeals court held that an arbitration clause in the mosque's by-laws applies to these claims and ordered the claims be referred to arbitration. The clause provides:

The board shall create an Islamic Arbitration Committee of 3-5 members in case of disagreement among board members or general assembly members of matters related to the center, such committee shall consist of a Lawyer, an Imam, and Community Leaders. All disputes arising hereunder shall be resolved by arbitration by the aforementioned committee....

The court pointed out that the "general assembly" is the general membership of the mosque, and all the plaintiffs and individual defendants were members. New Jersey Law Journal reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Suit Seeks Site Plan Approval For Mosque

A suit was filed in New Jersey federal district court by the Islamic Society in a prosperous New Jersey suburb whose attempts to obtain site plan approval for a mosque have been thwarted so far. The complaint (full text) in Islamic Society of Basking Ridge v. Township of Bernards, (D NJ, filed 3/10/2016), summarized the mosque's efforts:

What should have been a simple Board approval for a permitted use devolved into a Kafkaesque process that spanned an unprecedented four years and included 39 public hearings.

 The complaint cites anti-Muslim attitudes among those object to the mosque, and contends that the refusal to approve the sit plan violated RLUIPA, the 1st and 14 Amendments and various New Jersey statutory and constitutional provision.  New York Times reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Mel Kaufman for the lead.] 

UPDATE: New Jersey Advance Media reported on March 16 that the Justice Department has opened an investigation into the actions of Bernards Township.

Justice Department Investigating Mosque Zoning Dispute In Nebraska

According to yesterday's Omaha World-Herald, the U.S. Justice Department is investigating complaints by leaders of a mosque in Lexington, Nebraska, that the town is burdening their religious freedom in raising zoning objections to the use of a former downtown laundry building for Muslim prayer.  Somali workers from a local meat packing plant use the building for prayer 5 times a day. The paper reports:

City officials maintain that mosque leaders are ignoring local zoning laws and thumbing their noses at requirements for building permits and fire-code inspections.

They insist that the flap is about a lack of parking, not a denial of religious freedom, and that it wasn’t spurred by “Islamophobia.”

.... We’re just trying to plan and redevelop that part of our town,” said Lexington City Manager Joe Pepplitsch.... Let’s find an alternative.”

But local Muslim leaders question why a community that has hosted waves of immigrants seems to be taking such a hard line against them. They had gathered for prayers in two smaller buildings for eight years before expanding into and later buying the larger laundry next door. They see plenty of empty parking stalls nearby at two city-owned lots.

Defamation Suit Stemming From Ground Zero Mosque Plans Dismissed

Forras v. Rauf, (DC Cir., Feb. 12, 2016), is another installment in the battle that began in 2010 over plans to build the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque" near the site of the 2001 World Trade Center Attacks.  When the plans were announced, former firefighter Vincent Forras filed suit attempting to stop the project, contending it was a public nuisance and asserting claims for infliction of emotional distress and assault. (See prior posting.) In seeking dismissal of the case, defendant Imam Rauf's attorney submitted an affidavit contending that the lawsuit was motivated by "blind bigotry."  Forras' suit was dismissed, but he and his attorney Larry Klayman then sued Rauf and Bailey in federal district court in the District of Columbia for defamation. In this opinion, the D.C. Circuit held that the defamation suit should be dismissed because there is no personal jurisdiction in D.C. over defendants under D.C.'s long-arm statute.

City Sues Mosque Over Renovation and Expansion Plans

AP reports that the city of Lexington, Nebraska has sued a mosque to keep it from renovating and expanding its downtown property.  The Islamic Center of Dawson County wants to renovate two buildings it has occupied since 2008 and renovate an adjacent former laundromat building that it has acquired.  The city says the Islamic Center has never obtained an occupancy permit, and that it needs a conditional use permit to use the former laundromat building for religious purposes.  In December, City Council voted to deny the permit over concerns about parking and downtown redevelopment plans.  The city's lawsuit seeks penalties of $600 per day for building code and zoning violations, and asks for a temporary injunction against expansion into the laundromat building. The city is urging the Islamic Center to look for property in residential areas, but the mosque says those areas are far from where its members-- mostly Somalian and other African immigrants-- live.

9th Circuit Hears Arguments In Suit Over FBI Infiltration of Mosques

Yesterday the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Fazaga v. FBI.  The class action lawsuit against the FBI and FBI agents alleges that the government wrongfully spied on mainstream mosques in Southern California and targeted Muslims for surveillance because of their religion. (ACLU case page.)  In the case, a California federal district court dismissed claims against the FBI because of the state secrets privilege, agreeing that national security would be endangered by disclosing targets in counter-terrorism investigations. The court, however, permitted claims under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against individual FBI agents and supervisors to proceed. (See prior posting.) Politico reports on yesterday's oral arguments, in which all the questions to counsel were asked by Judge Berzon.

Donald Trump: Closing Certain Mosques To Fight ISIS Might Be OK

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has created a new controversy in an Oct. 20 interview (video of full interview) on Fox Business Varney & Co. in which he suggested that he might favor closing of certain mosques as a method to fight ISIS.  As reported by Mediaite:

Host Stuart Varney asked about a series of anti-ISIS measures the British government has taken. “They’ve got a whole new series of proposals to deal with this, including withdrawal of passports from some of these people who’ve gone over just to fight–”

“Absolutely. Good, good,” Trump said.

“…and closing some mosques,” he continued. “Would you do the same thing in America?”

“I would do that,” Trump responded. “Absolutely, I think it’s great.”

“Can you do it?” pressed Varney. “Can you close a mosque? We do have religious freedom.”

“Well, I don’t know,” Trump admitted. “I mean, I haven’t heard about the closing of the mosque. It depends, if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear, I don’t know. You’re going to have to certainly look at it.”