Catholic Group Challenges Zoning Refusal To Allow Building Of Chapel

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court challenging Genoa Township's refusal to allow a Catholic religious organization to develop and construct a 95-seat Chapel and prayer campus on land it acquired from the Diocese of Lansing in 2020. The Township has also demanded that all religious signage already on the property be removed. The complaint (full text) in Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. v. Genoa Charter Township, (ED MI, filed 6/2/2021), alleges that the Township's actions violate plaintiff's rights under RLUIPA, the Michigan Constitution and the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. American Freedom Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Building Code Is Not Zoning Law Under RLUIPA

In St. Paul’s Foundation and Shrine of Saint Nicholas the Wonder Worker, Patron of Sailors, Brewers and Repentant Thieves v. Baldacci, (D MA, May 21, 2021), a Massachusetts federal district court held that revocation of a building permit to assure compliance with the state building code is not covered by RLUIPA.  Plaintiff, a monastery, sought to renovate a building to provide a space to brew beer, a chapel and and a fellowship hall.  The court concluded that a building code is not a land use regulation or zoning law. Moreover, there was no substantial burden on religious exercise.

Eviction of Church Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Schworck v. City of Madison, (WD WI, May 6, 2021), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed a suit for damages brought against city officials by The Lion of Judah House of Rastafari and its founders who claim that their eviction from their leased premises violated their rights under RLUIPA, the free exercise clause, the equal protection clause and other provisions. The premises served as a homeless shelter, and a location for the church which distributed cannabis to members in exchange for donations. The lessees were never able to obtain a certificate of occupancy allowing them to operate the former retail store site as a church. The court said in part:

[N]ot only have plaintiffs failed to link to any land use regulation a substantial burden, but they have failed to submit evidence of a substantial burden on their religious practices altogether, thus defeating both plaintiffs’ RLUIPA and First Amendment claims on the merits....

In particular ... plaintiffs’ asserted substantial burden on their religious practices is the October 16, 2019, eviction from the property. Critically, they do not take the position that (1) compliance with the City’s municipal ordinances would violate their religious beliefs, (2) the costs and inconvenience of compliance posed a substantial burden, or (3) the uncontested municipal court proceedings created a substantial burden on their ability to exercise their religious beliefs....

[E]ven assuming that defendants or any City officials treated plaintiffs’ unfairly during the permitting or inspection process (and again, the evidence does not support such a finding), a reasonable trier of fact would have no basis to conclude that treatment impacted the October 16, 2019, eviction from the property on this record.

Wisconsin State Journal has more on the decision.

3rd Circuit Dismisses Inmate's Complaint of Religious Necklace Confiscation

In Adams v. Correctional Emergency Response Team, (3rd Cir., April 26, 2021), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's complaint that his religious necklace was confiscated in violation of the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

The complaint stated only that the missing necklace reflected Adams’s religious faith, with no description of how losing it affected his religious practice.

The court also held that RLUIPA does not permit actions against state officials in their individual capacities.

Suit Claims Enforcement of Deed Restriction Against Synagogue Violates Religious Exercise Rights

Suit was filed late last month in a Texas federal district court against the City of Houston seeking to block it from enforcing a deed restriction against a small Orthodox synagogue that meets in a house zoned only for residential use.  The complaint (full text) in TORCH (Torah Outreach Resource Center of Houston) v. City of Houston, Texas, (SD TX, filed 3/25/2021), alleges that the city's selective enforcement of the deed restriction violates RLUIPA, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the federal Fair Housing Act. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: An April 20 announcement by First Liberty indicates that the case has been settled, with the City of Houston agreeing not to enforce deed restrictions against the synagogue and to dismiss citations it has already issued.

Synagogues Lose Suit Over Repealed Zoning Law

In Orthodox Jewish Coalition of Chestnut Ridge v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, (SD NY, March 31, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit by Orthodox Jewish synagogues contending that the village's former zoning law violated RLUIPA, the free exercise clause and the New York constitution. The court held RLUIPA's safe harbor provision protects municipalities that correct their laws from damage suits under RLUIPA. It also dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection claim because they failed to show that the old zoning law was enacted with discriminatory intent. The court found that claims for prospective relief were moot and that certain other claims were not ripe.

Consent Decree Orders End To Village's Zoning Rules That Discriminate Against Orthodox Jewish Residents

Yesterday a New York federal district court in United States v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, March 15, 2021), entered a consent decree requiring modification of the village's zoning code. A press release by the Department of Justice describes the order:

[The preliminary injunction mandates] that the Village... immediately cease enforcement of zoning code provisions enacted in 2018 that discriminate against Orthodox Jewish residents in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act....  [T]he zoning code provisions at issue limit the amount of space in private homes that can be used as a Residential Place of Worship..., restrict whom residents are allowed to invite into their own homes to pray, and expand the use of an arbitrary, drawn-out application process designed to delay and effectively deny permits for even minor alterations to private houses.... [T]he Government presented evidence that the provisions had been motivated by discriminatory animus and served no legitimate governmental purpose....

3rd Circuit: State Legislators Have Immunity In Suit By Islamic Group Over Blocking Its Land Purchase

In HIRA Educational Services North America v. Augustine, (3d Cir., March 15, 2021), a consulting agency for Islamic educational groups sued, among others, three Pennsylvania state legislators for actions that prevented the agency from purchasing state land to use for a youth intervention center and Islamic boarding school. Plaintiffs claim that the legislators' actions were discriminatory and violated RLUIPA and the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act. The legislators claimed absolute and qualified immunity as a defense.

Plaintiffs pointed to the following actions by defendants:

(1) introducing a resolution to divest [the Pennsylvania Department of General Services] of its authority to sell the property; (2) co-authoring a letter to Governor Wolf describing their concerns...; (4) making public statements against the sale....; (6) meeting with the Secretary of DGS to try to persuade him to halt the sale....

The court held that absolute legislative immunity extends to acts that are "quintessentially legislative" or are integral steps in the legislative process, such as offering resolutions, voting, conducting legislative investigations and writing committee reports, and concluded:

Vogel’s introduction of Senate Resolution 154 and Sainato and Bernstine’s presentation of it to the House were quintessentially legislative activities.... Absolute legislative immunity also applies to the Legislators’ letter to Governor Wolf and Bernstine’s calls to HIRA because both are examples of protected legislative factfinding....

In addition ..., HIRA claimed the Legislators made disparaging public comments about HIRA, met with the DGS Secretary in an attempt to get DGS to cancel the sale to HIRA, and gave preferential treatment to the subsequent purchaser of the property. These are most accurately described as political “errands” or “speeches delivered outside [of] Congress,” so the Legislators are not entitled to absolute immunity for those activities.... 

[However] qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 

HIRA’s claims against Vogel and Sainato fail because HIRA has not pointed to any precedential case prohibiting legislators from speaking against the sale of state-owned property or from extending preferential treatment to certain recipients of government contracts.

Justice Department Announces Settlement of RLUIPA Suit Against New Jersey Town

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed a proposed consent decree reflecting an agreement with the Township of Toms River, New Jersey. If approved by the court the decree will settle a RLUIPA lawsuit that was filed against the Township:

The complaint alleges that since 2009, Toms River has enacted a series of revisions to its zoning code—including a ten-acre parcel minimum requirement—which greatly reduced both the number of zoning districts in which houses of worship can locate and the number of sites available for houses of worship. These restrictions have had a particular impact on the Township’s Orthodox Jewish population, who, because of their faith and religious traditions, tend to worship at small houses of worship which they walk to and from on the Sabbath and holidays.....

As part of the consent decree, the Township will revise its zoning code to: reduce the minimum acreage required for a house of worship ... to two acres; allow houses of worship as-of-right in certain zoning districts; allow smaller houses of worship to be located on minor collector roads; and treat houses of worship on comparable terms to nonreligious places of assembly....

11th Circuit: Pastor Should Be Allowed In Execution Chamber

In Smith v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, (11t Cir., Feb. 10, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed an Alabama district court's denial of an injunction to an inmate seeking to have his pastor present in the execution chamber with him. Prison rules allow only members of the execution team and certain medical personnel to be present. Focusing on RLUIPA, the majority said in part:

Although it correctly found Smith had a sincere belief that Pastor Wiley should be present in the execution chamber, the court erred by finding Smith’s exercise of that belief was not substantially burdened simply because Smith expressed a “preference” rather than prove his belief was fundamental to his religion. The court also improperly relied on alternative ways that Smith could practice his religion, including that Smith can visit and pray with Pastor Wiley leading up to his execution and Pastor Wiley can observe the execution from the viewing room.

The majority went on to conclude that while the state has a compelling interest in prison security, its policy is not the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.  It could, as does the federal prison system, require the prisoner to designate his spiritual advisor as soon as an execution date is set so that the state can conduct a background check.

Judge Jordan dissented, saying in part:

Whether the district court got RLUIPA’s least restrictive means requirement right or wrong, I do not believe that its decision constitutes an abuse of discretion.

RLUIPA Bars City's Enforcement of Parking Lot Restrictions On Church

In Pass-A-Grille Beach Community Church, Inc. v. City of St. Pete Beach, Florida, (MD FL, Jan. 26, 2021), a Florida federal district court, relying on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, granted a preliminary injunction barring the city from enforcing restrictions on the way in which the church can use its own parking lot. The church, which is located across the street from the beach, allows the public to use its parking lot, free of charge, to access the beach. The city contends that its ordinances prohibit the church from allowing anyone who is not there on legitimate church business from parking in the lot. According to the court:

[The church] states that a vital aspect of its beliefs and ministry is outreach to the local community and the world, heeding a direct command from Christ himself. It desires to use “biblically-based hospitality” to help people enjoy a day at the beach with their families. The Church cites several Biblical verses in support of its beliefs on this point.

After concluding that the city has imposed a "substantial burden" on the church, the court analyzes the primary disagreement between the parties-- the sincerity of the church's religious beliefs regarding use of the parking lot. The court said in part:

When inquiring into a claimant's sincerity ... our task is ... limited to asking whether the claimant is (in essence) seeking to perpetrate a fraud on the court – whether he actually holds the beliefs he claims to hold.... 

The Church is certainly not attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court when it states it desires to use its parking facilities to further its mission by attracting new people. Common sense shows that attracting new members is an important goal for almost all community organizations and mainstream religious groups. Likewise, giving away something for free (in this case parking) is a time-honored strategy used to generate attention create interest, and attract new customers.

At most, the City has demonstrated that the Church may have changed its mind over the years regarding the religious implications of its use of its parking lot.... Well respected religious leaders and institutions throughout the world change their minds on certain matters from time to time, and no one would suggest those changes evidence insincere religious beliefs.

4th Circuit Remands Muslim Inmate's RLUIPA and Equal Protection Claims

In Gentry v. Robinson, (4th Cir., Dec. 7, 2020), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part a Virginia district court's dismissal of a suit by a Muslim inmate who, for religious reasons, seeks to maintain a full beard. The court remanded plaintiff's RLUIPA claim instructing the district court to consider, in light of the prison system's change in policy to now allow beards, whether the claim is moot. The court also remanded for further consideration plaintiff's equal protection claim. The court however agreed that plaintiff's claim for damages for violating his 1st Amendment free exercise rights should be dismissed, saying in part:

Because no law or precedent at the time of the challenged conduct “clearly established” that VDOC’s grooming policy violated the constitutional rights of religious objectors like Gentry, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

DOJ Sues New York Village Over Discriminatory Zoning Aimed At Orthodox Jews

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed a RLUIPA lawsuit against the Village of Airmont, New York alleging that it has used its zoning code to discriminate against the Orthodox Jewish community.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, filed 12/2/2020), alleges that since the expiration of a prior consent decree, the Village has adopted a new zoning code, and has applied it in a discriminatory manner, that prevents Orthodox Jews from gaining zoning approval for home synagogues and a school. It has also enforced regulations in a manner that prevents Jews from clearing trees on their property to erect sukkahs, and prevents the installation of mikvahs. First Liberty Institute issued a press release with additional background. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Supreme Court Denies Review In RLUIPA Standing Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Rabbinical College v. Pomona, NY, (Docket No. 20-14, certiorari denied 11/23/2020). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 104-page opinion affirmed in part the judgment in favor of those supporting construction of a rabbinical school in a New York village, but held that the College lacks standing to pursue some of its claims. (See prior posting.)  The College sought Supreme Court review on the issue of when a property owner has standing to assert a RLUIPA challenge to a zoning law that prohibits a particular land use.

11th Circuit Allows Buddhist Center To Move Ahead With RLUIPA and State Law Claims

 In Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile Alabama, (11th Cir., Nov. 16, 2020), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the district court some of the claims by a Buddhist group that its rights were violated when the city Planning Commission and City Commission refused to approve its proposed meditation center.  The court held that the district court had used the wrong test to determine whether  the refusal imposed a "substantial burden" in violation of RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment. The Court said in part:

it isn’t necessary for a plaintiff to prove—as the district court here seemed to assume—that the government required her to completely surrender her religious beliefs; modified behavior, if the result of government coercion or pressure, can be enough. ...

However the court rejected plaintiffs' religious discrimination claim, saying in part:

It’s not enough .. for the plaintiffs to show that community members opposed their applications on prohibited grounds—they must prove that the city officials who rejected them acted with discriminatory intent. And we cannot attribute the residents’ purported bias to city officials absent at least some proof that the officials “ratified” it.

The court also held that Alabama's Religious Freedom Amendment requires plaintiffs to merely show a "burden", rather than a "substantial burden" on their religious exercise. The Court said in part:

Given the post-RFRA context in which ARFA was adopted, and its pointed rejection of the phrase “substantially burden” in favor of “burden” simpliciter, we conclude that qualifier’s omission was intentional. No matter how tempting it may be—whether to harmonize state and federal law or, as the district court suggested, to “control[] the floodgates of litigation”—we aren’t at liberty to graft the adverb “substantially” onto a provision (or set of provisions) that won’t accommodate it....

Church Says Eminent Domain Proceeding Violates It Religious Freedom Rights

 In Duncanville, Texas, the city has filed a condemnation petition seeking to take land owned by the Canaan Baptist Church in order to build a new fire station.  The property, which currently has no buildings on it, was acquired by the church in 2002 with plans to eventually build church buildings on it. In the meantime it is used for various outdoor church events by the 125-member, largely African-American church.  On Wednesday the church filed a motion seeking dismissal of the city's eminent domain proceedings.  The motion (full text) in City of Duncanville, Texas v. Canaan Baptist Church, (TX County Ct., filed 10/7/2020) contends that the condemnation proceedings violate the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the federal RLUIPA. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Denial of Church's Sewer Extension Application Did Not Violate RLUIPA or Constitution

 In Canaan Christian Church v. Montgomery County, Maryland, (D MD, Sept. 30, 2020), a Maryland federal district court, in a 54-page opinion, rejected challenges to the county's refusal to extend public sewer lines to a site on which plaintiffs wished to build a 2000-seat church. The court rejected plaintiff's "substantial burden" claim under RLUIPA, finding that the church had no reasonable expectation that the sewer extension would be approved.  The court also rejected RLUIPA "unreasonable limits" and "unequal terms" claims. It went on to reject equal protection and free exercise challenges.

Consent Decree Allows Construction of Chabad House

 A consent decree was entered this week in United States v. Borough of  Woodcliff Lake, (D NJ, Sept. 15, 2020), ordering the Borough to grant zoning variances that will permit construction of a Chabad synagogue. The decree, citing RLUIPA, orders zoning approvals in accordance with a site plan approved in the settlement of a parallel private action. The consent decree also contains provisions to assure future compliance with RLUIPA.  NJ.com reports on the consent decree. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Problem Meeting Parking Requirements Can Be RLUIPA "Substantial Burden"

In Immanuel Baptist Church v. City of Chicago, (ED IL, July 20, 2020), an Illinois federal district court held that plaintiff Church adequately pleaded that the city's parking regulations imposed a "substantial burden" under RLUIPA on its religious exercise. The court said in part:

Church was burdened by substantial expense, time and resources trying to comply with the City’s parking requirements. Under the original deal it had with the owner of the Property, the Church intended to purchase two buildings. Because of the City’s determination that the Church did not comply with its parking requirements, the Church was not able to close on the deal in 2016. Then when it was able to close on the deal two years later, the Church was only able to purchase one building. And during that delay, the Church spent money paying rent and used significant resources trying to negotiate with the City and identify potential parking solutions. Although the City finally exempted the Church from the parking requirement in 2019, that did not change the fact that the Church had spent significant time, money, and resources over those years, and lost the opportunity for ownership of one of the buildings. All of this was particularly difficult for the Church which has great needs and very limited resources....

RLUIPA Protects Religious Transition Home

In City Walk - Urban Mission Inc. v. Wakulla County Florida, (ND FL, July 9, 2020), a Florida federal district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring county officials to allow a church to operate a religious transition home for 3 to 6 unrelated adults. Neighbors had begun to complain when they learned that the home included registered sex offenders. The court said in part:

Defendant amended its Land Use Development Code, limiting Plaintiff to housing only two unrelated adults in the three-bedroom home at a given time....  The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ... provides broader protection for religious exercise than is available under the First Amendment. RLUIPA prohibits, among other things, a government from imposing a substantial burden on an entity’s or person’s religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that the imposition of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.

This Court finds Defendant’s two-adult limitation amounts to a substantial burden on Plaintiff’s religious exercise and that Defendant has failed to show that the burden imposed is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest.