Mosque Survives Motion To Dismiss Its RLUIPA and Constitutional Claims

In Garden State Islamic Center v. City of Vineland, (D NJ, Dec. 12, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court refused to dismiss a mosque's challenge to the denial of a final certificate of occupancy. The denial stems from the city's claim that the mosque is in violation of its septic system permit.  As summarized by the court:

GSIC claims that the Defendants’ actions are discriminatory in nature and are intended to prevent the GSIC from permanently opening and operating its house of worship/ religious education building through the discriminatory application of land use regulations, in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ... and the Constitutions of the United States and New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that the City continually changed the requirements for the septic system, which they previously approved, for discriminatory purposes.

The septic tank issue was merely the latest in a series of procedural hurdles encountered by the mosque. The court concluded that "the sewage permit issue is a zoning law subject to RLUIPA." The court also refused to dismiss plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment claims and related New Jersey constitutional claims.

Hasidic Jews Sue Town Over Zoning Barriers

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court against the village of Airmont for its actions in attempting to prevent expansion of its Hasidic Jewish community.  The complaint (full text) in Congregation of Ridnik v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, filed 12/10/2018), alleges in part:

For Hasidic Jews living in Airmont, seeking the Village’s approval for religious gatherings places applicants in a process reminiscent of the curse of Tantalus. At great expense, applicants prepare elaborate plans in order to obtain approval, which the Village uniformly declines to provide. Instead, the Village dangles promises that the applications will be approved in the future if certain modifications are made, only to then yank any hope of approval away even after the applicants make the requested modifications. Instead of providing an approval or denial, the Village requires applicants to satisfy new conditions, often citing purported problems with the applicants’ plans on which Airmont officials had already signed-off.

Hasidic Jewish School Sues For Right To Expand

A lawsuit was filed this week in a New York federal district court against the Village of Airmont charging that the village and its school board are engaged in a coordinated effort to prevent the local Hasidic Jewish community from expanding a religious school which operates on a 21-acre piece of land.  The 75-page complaint (full text) in Central UTA of Monsey v. Village of Airmont, New York, (SD NY, filed 11/28/2018), claims violations of RLUIPA, the 1st and 14th Amendments and the New York state constitution, contending:

Village officials have attempted to place a cap on the total number of Hasidic Jewish children that may be educated at Central UTA's Hasidic Jewish religious school, angry protesters have prevented a meeting of the Planning Board to consider Central UTA's application to build two new school buildings from occurring, and Village officials' political campaign advertisements paint an apocalyptic picture of what will happen if their opponents who support the rights of the Hasidic Jewish community are elected....

Defendants are using their political policymaking and enforcement authority to use the Village's zoning laws and ordinances to prevent and dissuade Hasidic Jews from joining their community and denying those families that have moved to the area their rights to school services that are guaranteed under the law.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Denial of Zoning Approval For Mosque

A suit was filed in a Michigan federal district court yesterday against the city of Troy, Michigan challenging the denial of a zoning variance for property acquired for use as a mosque and community center.  The complaint (full text) in Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, filed 11/9/2018), alleges RLUIPA and constitutional violations, saying in part:

31. The City of Troy currently has seventy-three (73) approved places of worship for various religions including Christian Churches and Hindu Temples. However, the city of Troy does not have a single approved Muslim Mosque or other Muslim religious institution within the city.

32. The city of Troy, through its Zoning Board of Appeals as well as planning commission employees, has on several occasions since 2013 recommended that Adam look to other cities as a better place to build their mosque and has stated that there are no places left in Troy where a mosque would be possible. This is despite the fact that there have been new Christian churches built and approved in the city of Troy between 2013 and 2018.

CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

Hawaii Supreme Court Approves Manua Kea Telescope

In In re Thirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, (HI Sup. Ct., Oct. 30, 2018), the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the state's Board of Land and Natural Resources allowing a 30 meter telescope to be erected near the summit of Mauna Kea.  Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners believe that Mauna Kea should be kept in its natural state as a sacred manifestation of their ancestry. Hawaii's Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 7) protects the cultural and religious rights of the descendants of Native Hawaiians. The Court's majority opinion by Justice McKenna upheld the agency's finding that while Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners use the summit of Mauna Kea, there is no evidence that they use the Thirty Meter Telescope Observatory site area and the Access Way. The Court also rejected appellants' RLUIPA challenge, holding that RLUIPA does not apply to the government's management of its own land. New York Times reports on the decision. [Thanks to  Kuliaikanu'u Petzoldt for the lead.]

Prison Cannot Limit Participation In Native American Religious Ceremonies To Ethnic Native Americans

In Guardado v. Nevada, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177365 (D NV, Oct. 16, 2018), a Nevada federal district court held that a Mexican-American inmate's free exercise rights protected by RLUIPA were violated when the Nevada prison system implemented a requirement of the Nevada Indian Commission that participation in Native American religious ceremonies in prison be limited to those of Native American heritage. Plaintiff had argued that no other religion requires inmates to show proof of their ethnicity to practice their beliefs. The court, concluding that it need not reach plaintiff's equal protection arguments since the practice violates RLUIPA, held:

Here, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's Native American religious beliefs are sincerely held. Further, AR 810 is a substantial burden on Plaintiff's free exercise as he is Mexican-American and cannot show that he is Native American or provide documentation that he is registered or affiliated with any recognized tribe.... Defendants have not shown that any safety or security issues are likely to arise from Plaintiff's participation in Native American religious ceremonies.

The court issued a preliminary injunction requiring  that defendants permit Ernest Guardado "to participate in Native American religious ceremonies with the Native American practitioners including sweat lodge, prayer circle, drum circle, smudging, sacred pipe, and access to the Native Indian grounds."

5th Circuit: Nation of Gods and Earths Prevails On Prison Treatment

In Tucker v. Collier, (5th Cir., Oct. 3, 2018), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected under RLUIPA the Texas Prison System's treatment of adherents of the Nation of Gods and Earths.  Limits were placed on the ability of these adherents to congregate based on the state's categorization of the group as a racially supremacist organization.  The inmate bringing the suit disputed that characterization. The court held that the district court had not satisfied RLUIPA's requirement of an an individualized inquiry into the state's compelling interest and least restrictive means. The court said in part:

The justification for the government’s interest rests on the thin ice of two assumptions with little support in the record: (1) that Tucker and his fellow would-be congregants hold supremacist beliefs; and (2) that allowing this supremacist group to privately congregate threatens prison security. The record shows little evidence that Tucker himself, any other Nation adherent in the Coffield Unit, or even any other inmate in Texas, holds supremacist beliefs. In fact, much of the evidence points to the contrary, showing that Tucker and his fellow Nation adherents advocate racial inclusion and nonviolence....

The government rests its conclusion that Tucker and his friends hold supremacist views on haphazard research about Nation beliefs generally....

Beyond its failure to pass muster under RLUIPA’s individualized analysis, the state’s asserted interest fails for another reason: the policy is underinclusive....

The state knows of the purported link between Odinism and white supremacy in its prisons, and its prison officials admit this point openly.  Still, those groups are allowed to meet. Because the state fails to offer any explanation for this differential treatment, it fails to present sufficient evidence for summary judgment that its interest is compelling....

The state also failed to show that a categorical ban on Nation assembly is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest.

Buddhist Center Can Proceed On Some Challenges To Zoning Denial

Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, (SD AL, Sept. 28, 2018), is a challenge to the city's denial of zoning applications to construct a Buddhist meditation center in a residential district. The court denied summary judgement to either side on plaintiff's RLUIPA nondiscrimination and Equal Protection claims. The court said in part:

Defendant’s primary assertion is their Planning Approval decision was based on the poor compatibility of Plaintiffs’ proposed meditation complex within a single family neighborhood, not bias towards Plaintiffs’ religion or practice of meditation.... While this argument supports the level of discretion Defendant claims to possess, Defendant’s evaluation of Plaintiffs’ Applications is riddled with inclinations of discrimination.

The court granted summary judgment to defendant on several of plaintiff's other challenges, including its RLUIPA substantial burden and RLUIPA equal terms claims and its 1st Amendment free exercise claim.

In 6th Circuit: Christian School Loses RLUIPA Equal Terms Challenge

In Tree of Life Christian Schools v. City of Upper Arlington, Ohio, (6th Cir., Sept. 18, 2018), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a private Christian school had failed to establish a prima facie case under the "equal terms" provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  At issue was the prohibition in Upper Arlington's zoning master plan of the operation of schools-- both secular and religious-- in the area zoned as an office and research center district.  The majority held that the ordinance is "no more onerous to Tree of Life than it is to nonreligious entities that generate comparably small amounts of revenue for the City."  Judge Thapar dissented, arguing that the majority was incorrect in holding that comparator institutions under RLUIPA's equal terms provision must be "similarly situated" in regard to legitimate zoning criteria. Columbus Dispatch reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

RLUIPA Challenge By Catholic High School To Stadium Lighting Rules Rejected

In Marianist Province of the United States v. City of Kirkwood, (ED MO, Sept. 7, 2018), a Missouri federal district court rejected a RLUIPA challenge to a Missouri city's zoning regulation of pole mounted lights in outdoor sports fields.  The challenge was brought by Vianney High School, a Catholic Marianist institution. The court held in part:

Vianney has not demonstrated that its ability to use the lights and sound system constitute a "religious exercise" or that its inability to use the lights and sound system constitutes a "substantial burden" on its religious beliefs.

The court also rejected the school's RLUIPA "equal terms" claim and various state law challenges.

RLUIPA Challenges To Zoning Decision On Catholic Church Must Go To Trial

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas v. City of Mission Woods, (D KA, Aug. 30, 2018), a Kansas federal district court refused to grant summary judgement for either party on most of the RLUIPA claims by a Catholic church that sought to convert a single family house into a meeting house. The city of Mission Woods had denied zoning approval for the project.

Church's RLUIPA Zoning challenge Can Move Ahead

In Redemption Community Church v. City of Laurel, Maryland, (D MD, Aug. 8, 2018), a Maryland federal district court refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a small Christian church challenging the city's zoning regulations that require houses of worship located on less than one acre in a commercial zone to obtain a special zoning exception.  The church planned to operate a non-profit coffee house and a house of worship from the same property. The court held that the church had adequately stated claims for violation of RLUIPA's equal terms and non-discrimination provisions as well as various provisions of the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Challenge To Settlement In Mosque Zoning Case Is Dismissed

In Youkhanna v. City of Sterling Heights, (ED MI, Aug. 1, 2018), a Michigan federal district court dismissed a lawsuit challenging a consent decree approved by the Sterling Heights City Council growing out of a dispute over zoning approval for a mosque. (See prior posting.) The consent decree settled two related lawsuits-- one by the Islamic Center and one by the Department of Justice-- that alleged violations of RLUIPA and of the Islamic Center's free exercise rights.  An overcrowded and contentious City Council meeting preceded approval of the consent decree.  Rejecting the challenge to approval of the consent decree the court said in part:

The crux of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is that the approval of the Consent Judgment should be invalidated because the Council purportedly failed to abide by the City’s Zoning Code by neglecting to consider the discretionary standards set forth in § 25.02. Plaintiffs’ further assert that the Consent Judgment should be invalidated because the City did not comply with the notice requirements under the MZEA [Michigan Zoning Enabling Act]. Both of Plaintiffs’ arguments are without merit.

The court also rejected claims that the Michigan Open Meetings Act had been violated and that defendants' 1st, 4th and 14th Amendment rights had been infringed. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs claim their speech was impermissibly chilled when they and other audience members were limited to a two-minute speaking time, prevented from speaking critically of the Islamic faith, and removed from the meeting for being disruptive. However, ... [w]hen the government designates a limited public forum for speech, as is the case of a city council meeting, it may apply restrictions to the time, place, and manner of speech so long as those restrictions “are content neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.”

The court had previously denied a preliminary injunction in the challenge.  Detroit News reports that defendants will appeal yesterday's ruling.

Meanwhile, according to AINA, another mosque controversy is on the horizon in Sterling Heights as a group of Pakistanis are moving ahead with plans to convert a former Lutheran church there into a mosque.

Neither Side Gets Summary Judgment In Hawaii Religious Zoning Dispute

In Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui, (D HI, July 20, 2018), a Hawaii federal district court denied summary judgment motions filed by both parties in a RLUIPA lawsuit challenging denial of a special use permit to build a church and hold religious events (particularly weddings) on land zoned for agricultural use. the court held that significant factual questions remain to be resolved as to the Temple's substantial burden claim, religious discrimination and equal terms claims, as well as its 1st and 14th Amendment assertions. The Temple promotes the practice of "Integral Yoga."

Suit Challenges Restriction On Farm's Use For Religious Activities

Yesterday's Sewickley Herald reports on a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania federal district court on Wednesday by owners of an historic farm who are using their property to host Bible study, a worship night, religious retreats and fundraisers.  Last October, Sewickley Heights served a cease and desist order on the farm's owners, claiming that they need a zoning variance in order to host the religious activities.  The owners claim that the cease and desist order violates their rights under the First Amendment and RLUIPA.  Sewickley Heights is a small upscale residential community of estates built on rolling hills and meadows.

Conditions Imposed On Church's Homeless Shelter Violate RUIPA

In First Lutheran Church v. City of St. Paul, (D MN, July 2, 2018), a Minnesota federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against two conditions the city imposed on the church's partnering with Listening House in the use of the church's basement as a day shelter for the homeless. One condition was a requirement that a sign be posted restricting after hours use of church grounds. The church objected saying that visitors are welcome to enjoy its property at any time. The second condition limited the number of guests to 20 per day, even though 50 to 60 are typically served and the fire code capacity for the basement is 122. The court, finding a violation of RLUIPA, said in part:

With respect to the sign-posting requirement, the governmental interest furthered is the help the City needs to enforce trespassing.... Even assuming that aiding the enforcement of trespassing is a compelling governmental interest, entry onto First Lutheran’s property after hours is not trespassing because First Lutheran consents to people being on church property after hours.... 

With respect to the twenty-person limit, the City claims that the condition furthers the governmental interest in maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood.... The limit purportedly furthers this interest in two ways: by reducing the number of guests and thereby preventing overcrowding of a residential neighborhood, and by reducing petty offenses allegedly committed by guests. But, in practice, the limit is unlikely to further the City’s interest in either way....

First, it is unclear whether or how the limit will reduce overcrowding. As noted, demand is high for First Lutheran’s and Listening House’s services. As news spreads about the twenty-person limit, it is likely that more prospective guests will line up early in hopes of being admitted, which would cause more overcrowding in the morning hours....

Second, the limit is unlikely to reduce petty offenses.... If Listening House closed its doors tomorrow, its guests who are homeless or poor would still be homeless or poor, and the City would continue to experience the effects of homelessness and poverty. 

The court also found that the sign posting requirement amounts to unconstitutional content-based compelled speech.

DOJ Announces New Initiative To Protect Relocation For Religious Institutions

In a press release yesterday, the Department of Justice announced a new Place To Worship Initiative:

[The Initiative] will focus on protecting the ability of houses of worship and other religious institutions to build, expand, buy, or rent facilities....

The Department will work with the United States Attorney’s Offices to strengthen awareness of the land use provisions of RLUIPA by: hosting community outreach events across the country, educating municipal officials and religious organizations about RLUIPA’s requirements, and providing additional training and resources for federal prosecutors.

Along with launching the Initiative, DOJ also announced that it has filed a RLUIPA lawsuit against Borough of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. Borough of Woodcliff Lake, (D NJ, filed 6/13/2018), contends that the town imposed a substantial burden on a Chabad synagogue when it denied it a variance to allow it to expand on its current site.  The expansion plans were developed after attempts to acquire other sites were frustrated by the Borough.  New York Post reports on the lawsuit.

Church Sues, Surprised By Zoning Law Change

A suit was filed last week in a North Carolina federal district court by a small church challenging the zoning regulations that prevent it from using space it rented and renovated for worship services.  The complaint (full text) in At the Cross Fellowship Baptist Church Inc v. City of Monroe, North Carolina, (WD NC, filed 6/4/2018), recounts that the church leased the space after being assured by the landlord that another church had operated there in the recent past.  However, unknown to the church, an amended zoning law had been enacted in the interim which did not include churches as a permitted use there. The complaint alleges that the zoning ordinance violates its rights under RLUIPA and under the 1st and 14th Amendments.  ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Native Americans Sue To Keep Use of Prayer Ground

On Monday, a suit was filed in New Jersey federal district court on behalf of the Native American Ramapough Lenape Nation claiming that local officials along with a neighboring housing association are attempting to prevent the Ramapoughs from using their own prayer ground for religious activities. (See prior related posting.)  The complaint (full text) in Ramapough Mountain Indians, Inc. v. Township of Mahwah, (D NJ, filed 5/14/2018), alleges in part:

Defendant Township of Mahwah is imposing cumulative crippling fines against plaintiff Ramapough of $12,500 per day, totalling $480,000 as of May 14, 2018, to end religious use of property, to eliminate sacred sites, and prevent assembly.

...  By letter dated September 5, 2017 Mahwah sent a letter purporting to revoke a 2012 zoning permit that it failed to disclose to Ramapough or State Courts recognizing religious use and logs with masks carved in them ... unilaterally and secretly without notice nor opportunity to be heard.

... Defendant Polo Club, in furtherance of this campaign to pressure the Ramapough Nation into ceasing its religious practices, to assemble and in fact to yield up the land, has made numerous unfounded complaints to the police department and used the New Jersey municipal "private warrant" process to bring criminal charges against Ramapough members.

Plaintiffs claim that these actions violate their 1st and 14th Amendment rights, RLUIPA and international treaties.  Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Islamic School Consultant Files Religious Freedom Lawsuit Over Impediments To Its Purchase of Property

WFJM News reported yesterday on a federal court lawsuit filed last month by a consulting firm for Islamic schools over impediments placed in its way as it attempted to purchase a now-vacant 150 acre site in Shenango Township, Pennsylvania from the state.  The property, containing 13 building, was formerly used to provide rehabilitative services and housing for juvenile offenders.  Plaintiff intended to use the site in part for a youth intervention center and partly for an Islamic boarding school.  The complaint (full text) in HIRA Educational Services of North America v. Augustine, (WD PA, filed 4/13/2018), alleges that local residents were unhappy that the property was being sold to an Islamic institution.  At a community meeting, a representative of an advocacy organization opposing the sale falsely claimed that the property would be used as a center for thousands of refugees. State and local officials took a variety of elaborate steps to block the sale, making it impossible for the purchaser to obtain financing for the property. The lawsuit contends that actions by officials to prevent the purchase imposed a substantial burden on religous exercise in violation of RLUIPA, the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act and federal civil rights laws.