Winery Says Zoning Restrictions On Outdoor Weddings Violate RLUIPA and Speech Rights

The Ventura County Star reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed in a California federal district court by a southern California winery challenging a Ventura County ordinance that requires conditional use permits for outdoor events, including weddings.  Six months ago the county denied Epona Estate's application for a permit to allow weddings, charitable fundraisers, luncheons and similar events at the winery.  The suit contends that the restriction on outdoor weddings violates the winery's free speech rights as well as its rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Church's RLUIPA Claim Dismissed, But Defamation Claim Moves Forward

In Riverside Church v. City of St. Michael, (D MN, Aug. 31, 2016), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed a church's RLUIPA and free exercise claims, but allowed the church to proceed on its free speech and defamation claims. A Christian and Missionary Alliance congregation attempted to purchase a building formerly used as a movie theater but could not obtain city zoning approval.  Eventually the city amended its zoning ordinance to allow religious assemblies, among others, in the relevant zoning district.  The Church however sued over the past zoning denials, and over an allegedly false public statement the city made as to why the Church withdrew from negotiations with the city.  In dismissing the Church's RLUIPA claim, the court concluded that neither the substantial burden nor equal terms provisions of the law were violated.  The court also pointed to a less-often used safe-harbor provision in RLUIPA that allows the city to "avoid the pre-emptive force" of the statute by taking action to eliminate the substantial burden imposed by a policy.  In allowing the Church's free speech claim to proceed, the court concluded that questions remained as to whether the ban on religious assemblies in the relevant zoning district was narrowly enough tailored to the city's traffic safety concerns.

Denial of Zoning Variance To Yeshiva Violates RLUIPA

In Yeshiva Gedolah Na'os Yaakov v. Township of Ocean NJ, (D NJ, Aug. 25, 2016), a New Jersey federal district court held that that Ocean, New Jersey's Zoning Board of Adjustment violated RLUIPA when it denied a use variance to allow plaintiffs to operate a Jewish post-high school yeshiva.  Making findings about the school's code of conduct for its students, the court ordered the township to grant approval of use of the building for a school of up to 80 students (less than the 96 the school wanted), subject to a detailed list of improvements and changes to the property. Reporting on the decision, Asbury Park Press quoted plaintiffs' attorney who said in a prepared statement:

Zoning regulation should never be used as a tool to accommodate the unreasonable fears and prejudice of small-minded individuals desperate to keep a certain population out of their neighborhoods.

Pregnancy Resource Center Sues Over Rezoning Denial

In Raleigh, North Carolina on Wednesday a Christian ministry filed suit in federal district court challenging the city's refusal to rezone property adjacent to an abortion clinic for use by the ministry as a pregnancy resource center.  The complaint (full text) in A Hand of Hope Pregnancy Resource Center v. City of Raleigh, (ED NC, filed 8/17/2016), contends that the city's rezoning refusal that prevents the ministry from expanding its services violates plaintiff's rights under RLUIPA as well as under the 1st and 14th Amendments.  WRAL reports on the lawsuit.

Court Says Questions Remain In Private Foundation's RLUIPA Claim Against City

In Daniel & Francine Scinto Foundation v. City of Orange, (CD CA, Aug. 3, 2016), a California federal district court denied a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment in a suit claiming that the city of Orange, California violated RLUIPA by failing to keep adequate records about a building owned by plaintiff and rented by plaintiff to a church.  The tenant-- the Breath of Life Spirit Ministries-- moved out after months of negotiations with the city over potential Fire Code violations. The court said in part:

Even if the Court assumes (without deciding) that renting to a religious institution constitutes religious exercise under RIULPA, the Court cannot conclude Plaintiff has shown “the City’s land use regulation . . . imposed a substantial burden on its religious exercise.”

Moving to plaintiff's argument under the "equal terms" provision of RLUIPA, the court concluded that a dispute of material fact remains as to whether a Section 509(a)(3) private foundation constitutes a "religious assembly or institution" for purposes of RLUIPA.

Sikh Center Sues Under RLUIPA After Work On New Temple Is Ordered Stopped

NBC News reports on a federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York last week by the Guru Gobind Singh Sikh Center against the Town of Oyster Bay, New York.  In July-- almost 17 months after approving the Center's site plan for its new gurdwara-- the town issued a stop work order and ordered an environmental review, saying that the construction departed from the site plan. Claiming that the town's actions were taken to appease some residents who are hostile to the temple and its worship, the suit alleges violations of RLUIPA as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments. The new building, which replaces an older one that was on the same site, is already 82% complete. The Center has spent over $3 million on construction and on costs subsequent to the stop work order.

RLUIPA Applies To Law Aimed At Transitional Housing For Sex Offenders

In Martin v. Houston, (MD AL, July 25, 2016), an Alabama federal district court held that a pastor can invoke RLUIPA in challenging an Alabama law that would require him to close down his mobile home transitional housing arrangement for recently-released male sex offenders.  The law, which the state legislature made applicable to only one county, prohibits unrelated adult sex offenders from establishing residency in the same home or living less than 300 feet apart on the same property. The court concluded that the law constitutes a land use regulation under which the government makes individualized assessments of the proposed use of property.

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.

Denial of Use Permit Did Not Impose "Substantial Burden" Under RLUIPA

In Livingston Christian Schools v. Genoa Charter Township, (ED MI, June 30, 2016), a Michigan federal district court held that a township's denial of a special use permit did not impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise rights of a Christian school.  The school sought to move to a building currently owned by a church and recently leased to the school. The court said in part:

The term “substantial burden” is not defined in the RLUIPA. The Sixth Circuit in Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian articulated a standard which requires LCS to show that, “ . . . the government action place[s] substantial pressure on [it] to violate its religious beliefs or effectively bar[s] [it] from using its property in the exercise of its religion[.]” ... While it may be less convenient or more expensive for LCS to operate its school from a different location, the circumstances present here do not constitute a substantial burden.... Because LCS has not “proffered evidence showing that it cannot carry out its church missions and ministries due to the Township’s denial,” it has not established a substantial burden on its free exercise of religion.

The court also rejected the school's 1st and 14th Amendment challenges.

Amish Man Wins Exemption From State Building Code

A Michigan state trial court judge has held that a member of the Old Order Amish is entitled to an exemption from the Michigan Residential Building Code.  According to the Sault St. Marie News, in a June 6 opinion visiting Judge Harold Johnson sitting in the 50th District Court held that denial of the exemption would violate both the Fair Housing Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Amish defendant William Miller objected on religious grounds to requirements for electric and plumbing systems, indoor bathrooms, modernized kitchens and electronic devices such as smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors.

Christian Camp Says Nearby Dairy Farm Approval Violates RLUIPA

A lawsuit was filed last month in an Indiana state trial court by a Christian youth camp which objects to a zoning board's approval of a large dairy farm nearby. The complaint (full text) in House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v. Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals, (filed 5/16/2016), alleges that the 1400 cows and three large waste lagoons on the farm will expose campers to noxious odors and harmful air emissions that will "interfere with Harvest Christian Camp's thirty-year mission and ability to provide a safe, healthy, and Christian rural setting for thousands of children and teens to be educated, enriched spiritually, and enhanced by the outdoors...."  This, the complaint alleges, amounts to a substantial burden that violates the camp's rights under RLUIPA, the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First and 14th Amendments and the state constitution's equal privileges and immunities clause. RLUIPA Defense blog reports on the case.

6th Circuit Remands RLUIPA "Equal Terms" Zoning Challenge

In Tree of Life Christian Schools v. City of Upper Arlington, (6th Cir., May 18, 2016), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed and remanded in a RLUIPA land use case, finding that material facts remain as to the application of RLUIPA's "equal terms" provision.  At issue is an Ohio city's refusal to rezone a large office building for use as a religious school. The office building is in an area zoned as an "Office and Research District" -- an area designed for uses that would maximize the city's tax revenues. The majority said in part:

The religious land use that TOL Christian Schools proposes is, we assume without deciding, deleterious to the purpose of the regulation at issue (which we assume to be increasing income-tax revenue). But the nonreligious uses that the government concedes it would allow seem to be similarly situated to the regulation..... [T]he government suggested at oral argument that it would prefer that [the property] be used for an ambulatory care center or outpatient surgery center. But we cannot assume as a fact... that an ambulatory care center (or an outpatient surgery center, or a data and call center, or office space for a not-for-profit organization, or a daycare) would employ higher-income workers than TOL Christian Schools would.... 

5th Circuit: Texas Prisons' Grooming and Headwear Policies Violate RLUIPA

Reflecting the approach taken last year by the U.S. Supreme Court in Holt v. Hobbs (see prior posting), yesterday the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ali v. Stephens, (5th Cir., May 2, 2016) held that the Texas prison system's grooming and headwear policies violate a Muslim inmate's rights under RLUIPA.  The court affirmed the trial court's grant of declaratory and injuctive relief to allow an observant Muslim inmate to grow a 4-inch beard and wear his kufi throughout the prison facility.

New Resource On RLUIPA Land Use Cases

The Dalton & Tomich law firm announced yesterday that it has posted on its website the first comprehensive list of RLUIPA land use cases along with basic information about the claims involved. It has also posted a bibliography of leading articles on RLUIPA's land use provisions.

9th Circuit: Denial of Exemption For Use of Cannabis Does Not Impose Substantial Burden On Religious Exercise

In Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii v. Lynch, (9th Cir., April 6, 2016), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a church and its founder were properly denied an exemption from federal laws that prohibit the possession and distribution of cannabis. Under RFRA, denial of an exemption does not impose a "substantial burden" on plaintiffs' exercise of religion because the primary sacrament of the church is peyote.  Plaintiffs consume cannabis only as a substitute. They do not claim that peyote is unavailable or that cannabis serves a unique religious function.

Lower Courts Applying Tougher RLUIPA Standards In Prisoner Cases

Last year's Supreme Court decision in Holt v. Hobbs on prisoner rights (see prior posting) is slowly beginning to impact otherwise routine prisoner claims in lower courts.  Muhammad v. Wheeler, (ED AR, March 22, 2016) involves a rather typical RLUIPA challenge by a Muslim inmate to the availability of a Halal diet in his Arkansas prison.  A vegetarian diet that complies with Halal requirements was available, but a Halal compliant diet containing meat was not. The federal magistrate judge who first heard the case recommended rejecting the claim on the ground that plaintiff had not shown a substantial burden on his religious exercise. (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36816, Jan. 19, 2016). However the district court rejected this portion of the recommendation.  In refusing to grant summary judgment to either side, the court said in part:

It is certainly conceivable that providing halal meat to Mr. Muhammad would increase security concerns and require considerable resources to the extent that deciding not to provide it at all furthers a compelling government interest. However, ... [defendants] fail to make properly that argument..... For example, in support of their cost argument, they claim that changing their policy would incur an increase of “over $9,600 for one serving of meat” and that “depending on which meal plan an inmate is on, meat is generally served three times per day”... They calculate this substantial figure by multiplying the difference in cost between halal meat and regular meat by 16,020, the total number of inmates housed by the ADC. This is precisely the type of generalized argument that is not allowed under the RLUIPA. The proper focused inquiry under the RLUIPA is whether denying halal meat to Mr. Muhammad, not all ADC inmates, furthers a compelling government interest.

Even if ... [defendants] successfully demonstrated that completely denying Mr. Muhammad access to halal meat furthers a compelling government interest, they fail to show how their no-halal-meat policy is the least restrictive means of serving that interest....  For example, nothing in the record indicates how often halal meat would need to be served to satisfy Mr. Muhammad’s religious needs. Does Mr. Muhammad require three servings of meat a day or one serving a year? They also fail to respond to Mr. Muhammad’s proposed compromise – a pescatarian meal plan that combines the three halal fish items already served in the common fare plan with the vegetarian plan.... It is unclear to the Court whether this plan fits within Mr. Muhammad’s own beliefs regarding a halal diet, but if he claims that offering a pescatarian meal plan would no longer place a substantial burden upon his religious exercise, ... [defendants] must show how refusing to provide such a plan furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. 

RLUIPA Challenge To Fire Safety Rules By Faith-Based Organization Fails

Affordable Recovery Housing v. City of Blue Island, (ED IL, March 23, 2016), involves a challenge to the action of officials of a Chicago suburb who evicted residents of a recovery home that used faith based methods to treat drug and alcohol abuse.  The city acted because the facility failed to comply with safety regulations requiring fire sprinklers in buildings that house overnight guests. In the case, an Illinois federal district court held that the city's action did not violate various provisions of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act nor similar provisions of  the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

Plaintiff argues that Blue Island’s eviction of its 73 residents substantially burdened its ability to exercise its religion by effectively rendering religious exercise impracticable. However, the City’s eviction was pursuant to its fire safety code, not its zoning ordinance. Because Blue Island was not “impos[ing] or implement[ing] a land use regulation”..., this action falls outside of the regulatory scope of RLUIPA and IRFRA.

The court also rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, saying that any burden is merely "the incidental effect of a neutral, generally applicable, and otherwise valid regulation...."

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.

RLUIPA Challenge Settled; Soup Kitchen Gets Permit To Operate

JDSupra reported yesterday on the settlement of three related RLUIPA lawsuits that were filed against the City of Norwich, Connecticut by St. Vincent de Paul Place, a ministry of The Polish Roman Catholic Congregation.  The suits sought authorization to continue to operate a soup kitchen and food pantry, and offer related services, at the site of a former parochial school. The Stipulated Judgment (full text) in St. Vincent de Paul Place, Norwich, Inc. v. City of Norwich, (D CT, Feb. 12, 2016), provides that the city will issue a special permit, subject to specified hours of operation, to the church.  The city commission approved the settlement at a public meeting, despite continued opposition from neighbors. City commissioners did not want to risk liability for the church's legal fees that the city would have incurred if it continued to litigate and ultimately lost. (See prior related posting.)

Church Wins In RLUIPA "Equal Terms" Challenge To Redevelopment Zone Limits

In Summit Church v. Randolph County Development Authority, (ND WV, March 2, 2016), a West Virginia federal district court held that the Randolph County (WV) Development Authority violated the "equal terms" provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act when it refused to sell property in a redevelopment project to a church.  The property was part of a former rail yard being redeveloped for mixed commercial use, reflecting the "the history and culture of the site." The court said in part:

The defendants wholly fail to attempt to define what they believe the “history and culture of the site” even is. It was a railyard.... Therefore, an operating train, a railroad museum or railroad-themed restaurant – which do exist in the current Elkins Railyard – theoretically make sense under the RCDA’s vision. The other existing establishments are nothing more than “medical tenants.... The northern portion of the Railyard... is morphing into something more akin to a medical park. The defendants have not shown, however, how a church would harm the Covenants’ objectives any more than the other permitted uses.