Certiorari Denied In Christian School's RLUIPA Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Livingston Christian Schools v. Genoa Charter Township, (Docket No. 17-914, certiorari denied 4/30/2018) (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a RLUIPA claim by a Christian school that was denied a special use permit needed for it to relocate. The school had concluded that remaining in its present location on a long-term basis would end in its dissolution from lack of enrollment and income.  However the Court held as a matter of law that the denial of the permit did not impose a "substantial burden" on the school. (See prior posting.)

Rabbi Has RLUIPA "Substantial Burden" Claim Standing

Congregation ARIEL Russian Community Synagogue, Inc. v. Baltimore County, (D MD, March 28, 2018), is a challenge to a zoning denial of a synagogue's plans to build a new synagogue building on property it has purchased and to use an existing house on the property as a parsonage for its rabbi.  The denial was challenged on various constitutional and statutory grounds, including under RLUIPA.  Defendants raised numerous procedural objections, including a claim that the congregation's rabbi lacks standing as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.  The court concluded that the rabbi has standing to bring a RLUIPA substantial burden challenge, saying in part:

Plaintiffs argue that Maryland recognizes oral lease agreements, and the Court ... can infer that there is an oral lease agreement between ARIEL and Rabbi Belinsky. As a result, Plaintiffs maintain that Rabbi Belinsky has a property interest in the Property. The Court agrees.

However the court held that the rabbi does not have standing to bring RLUIPA non-discrimination and equal terms claims because those provisions apply only to a religious "assembly or institution."

Church's Challenge To Zoning Denial Is Rejected

In Jesus Christ Is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Baltimore County, (D MD, March 27, 2018), a Maryland federal district court dismissed RLUIPA and constitutional challenges by a church to a county's refusal to grant it a zoning variance so it could convert a home it purchased into a house of worship.  The court, in its 35-page opinion, said in part:

Plaintiffs have not plausibly pled a substantial burden claim because the record shows that Reverend Ware did not have a reasonable expectation when she bought the Property that it could be used for the Church.

Plaintiff's discrimination claim focused on the fact that the church's members were African immigrants and on objections to the nature of its ministry.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs have not alleged facts supporting an inference that the Board acted with intentional or purposeful discrimination.

Rabbi Defends Against Zoning Charges Citing Religious Obligation of Hospitality

Savannah Morning News yesterday reported on litigation pending in a Georgia state trial court charging violation of local zoning laws.  Last December, City of Savannah attorneys filed suit against Rabbi Arnold Belzer and his wife for renting out their home as a short-term vacation rental.  Apparently the rental was advertised through Air BNB. Rabbi Belzer argues that fines or an injunction would impose a substantial burden on their free exercise rights.  Their pleadings assert:

As devout people of faith, Rabbi and Mrs. (Arlene) Belzer have a sincerely held religious belief in the Jewish practice of hospitality.  They consider the practice of hospitality to be a religious obligation found in Jewish scripture and tradition.

Small Church Challenges Zoning Changes

Yesterday a small church in Laurel, Maryland filed a federal lawsuit challenging a zoning code change that prevents it from using property it purchased for a non-profit coffee shop and house of worship.  The complaint (full text) in Redemption Community Church v. City of Laurel, Maryland, (D MD, filed 2/9/2018), alleges that the zoning changes violate its right under RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment.  It alleges in part:

4. ... the City changed its zoning code to ban non-profit businesses and to require small churches (those located on less than one acre) to go through an onerous, costly, and uncertain special exception process before locating in the C-V Zone.

5. Churches that can afford more than an acre, and numerous secular assemblies or institutions can locate in the C-V Zone as of right....

7. The City has discriminated against Redemption Community Church, treated it less favorably than similarly-situated secular organizations, substantially burdened the Church’s free exercise of religion, and infringed on the Church’s right to free speech, peaceable assembly, and equal protection in violation of the Church’s federal and constitutional rights.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Settlement Reached In NJ Mosque Zoning Lawsuit

Jersey Journal reported last week that a settlement has been reached in Bayonne Muslims v. City of  Bayonne, a RLUIPA lawsuit filed in New Jersey federal district court last May. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement, construction of a community center and mosque will be approved by Bayonne's Zoning Board after a revised application is filed and a public meeting is held.  The city will also pay $280,000 for plaintiff's attorneys' fees and an additional $120,000 in damages.

UPDATE: AP reported (March 13) that the Bayonne zoning board gave final approval to the project.

Church Camp Loses Challenge To Zoning Decision On Neighboring Dairy Farm

In House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v. Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals, (IN App., Jan. 16, 2018), an Indiana state appeals court rejected a challenge by a church summer camp to a zoning board decision granting a special exception to a dairy farm to operate a concentrated animal feeding operation one-half mile from the summer camp.  The church argued in part that the grant of the special exception substantially burdens its religious exercise by "imperiling the health of the children" at its camp.  The court first held that the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is not available to the church here because a RLUIPA claim can be raised only by a person with a property interest in the land that is regulated.  RLUIPA does not extend to other property that is merely affected by a land use decision as to neighboring land.

The court went on to hold that Indiana's state Religious Freedom Restoration Act was also not violated:

The [Board of Zoning Appeal's] apparent assessment that House of Prayer will not be substantially burdened in the exercise of its religion by the grant of the special exception is supported by substantial evidence.

Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Rabbinical College Wins Challenge To Zoning and Environmental Laws

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY, (SD NY, Dec. 7, 2017), a New York federal district court in a 112-page opinion held that various zoning and environmental regulations enacted by the Village of Pomona violate the rights of plaintiff which is seeking to build a rabbinical college, on-campus housing and related religious facilities on a 100-acre piece of land which it owns.  The court held that plaintiff had proven that the challenged laws were enacted with a discriminatory purpose to "thwart the expansion of the orthodox/ Hasidic community.  The challenged laws were found to violate the Equal Protection Clause, the state and federal Free Exercise Clauses, RLUIPA's non-discrimination provisions, and the Fair Housing Act.  the court also concluded that the challenged laws imposed a substantial burden on plaintiff's religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA.  Lohud reports on the decision.

Suit Over Mosque Settlement Remanded To State Court

Litigation over site plan approval for construction of a mosque in Bernards Township, New Jersey continues. In May, the Township reached settlements with the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge and with the U.S. Justice Department under which the Township will permit the mosque to be built. (See prior posting.) However, township residents continue to challenge the settlement. (See prior related posting.)  One of the suits contends that proper notice was not given of the meetings that approved the settlements.  That suit was originally filed in state court, but removed to federal court by defendants.  Now in Smith v. Township of Bernards, (D NJ, Nov. 29, 2017), the New Jersey federal court to which the case was removed has remanded the case to state court.  It found that the suit does not raise any federal law issue, even though one of the settlements was incorporated into a federal court order. Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the court's decision.

Chabad Gets Partial Win Under RLUIPA In Long-Running Suit

In a case that has wound its way through the courts for nearly ten years, this week a Connecticut federal district court gave a partial victory to the Orthodox Jewish Chabad organization which is seeking to expand a residential building it purchased in an area zoned as an Historic District.  In Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Inc. v. Borough of Litchfield, Connecticut, (D CT, Nov. 1, 2017), a Connecticut federal district court held that the Lichtfield Historic District Commission's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the planned expansion placed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Chabad in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  However, the court concluded that Chabad needs to submit revised plans that eliminates the portion of the expansion that would serve as a residence for the rabbi. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Dan Dalton for the lead.]

Church Can Move Ahead With RLUIPA Challenges To Zoning Refusal

In Hunt Valley Baptist Church, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, (D MD, Oct. 17, 2017), a Maryland federal district court held that a Baptist church can proceed with challenges under RLUIPA as well as with Free Exercise and Equal Protection challenges to the county's refusal to grant it a special exception under its zoning laws to allow construction of a place of worship and related facilities. The court said in part:

... [T]he Church has stated a substantial burden claim under 42 U.S.C. §2000cc(a)(1) because it has plausibly alleged that it had a reasonable expectation that it could build a house of worship on the Property if it satisfied the conditions. Moreover, the Church alleges that it complied with all of the objective standards under BCZR § 502.1 for the grant of a special exception. ....

HVBC has adequately alleged that it was treated less favorably than other religious denominations, and that the rejection of its application for a special exception ―was substantially motivated by hostility and animus toward the Church and its religious character, practices and denomination.

UPDATE: The court filed an amended opinion on Oct. 24, involving a change on the last page of the opinion as to dropping one of the defendants.

Christian School's Zoning Exclusion Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Tree of Life Christian Schools v. City of Upper Arlington, (SD OH, Oct. 13, 2017), an Ohio federal district court held that Upper Arlington, Ohio's zoning law as applied to a Christian school did not violate the equal terms provision of RLUIPA.  In the case which has been in the courts for more than six years, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had instructed the district court to determine:

Are there nonreligious assemblies or institutions to which the court should compare Tree of Life Christian Schools because they would fail to maximize income-tax revenue, and if so, would those assemblies or institutions be treated equally to TOL Christian Schools?

The district court concluded:

Plaintiff’s proposed use of the Property as a school is not consistent with the regulatory purpose of the ORC Office and Research District–to maximize income, whereas permitted uses such as banks, hotels/motels, and hospitals do serve that purpose. Plaintiff, a religious school, is treated the same as every other nonreligious assembly or institution, such as secular schools, that do not maximize tax revenue as they are all prohibited from the ORC Office and Research District. Therefore, regardless of what test is applied, there is no nonreligious assembly or institution similarly situated that is being treated better than Plaintiff. 

Church Charges Zoning Denial Stemmed From Anti-African Discrimination

Mwakilishi reports on a lawsuit filed Oct. 13 in a Maryland federal district court by the Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries challenging Baltimore County's refusal to rezone residential property purchased by the congregation for use as a church.  The church's minister is a native of Kenya and much of the congregation is African.  The suit charges that the zoning denial stemmed from opposition by neighbors to those of African heritage, in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as RLUIPA.

Church Loses RLUIPA Equal Terms Challenge To Parking Requirements

In Immanuel Baptist Church v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Sept. 22, 2017), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a church's facial RLUIPA "equal terms" challenge, as well as its equal protection challenge to the city's parking requirement for "religious assemblies." The court concluded that churches are not similarly situated to libraries for which less stringent parking standards are imposed. The court however granted the church leave to file an amended complaint asserting an "as applied" RLUIPA challenge.

Church's Objections To Zoning Conditions Dismissed On Ripeness Grounds

In Life Covenant Church, Inc. v. Town of Colonie, (ND NY, Sept. 13, 2017), a New York federal district court dismissed on ripeness grounds a church's objections to conditions placed in the zoning approval for its construction of a new building. The church contended that conditions limiting the starting time for religious services and the number of daily services violated its rights under the state and federal constitutions as well as RLUIPA.  The court held that the judicial challenge is not ripe because the church has not received a final decision on its request to the city that it amend its prior approval to eliminate the objectionable conditions.

No RLUIPA Violations In Denial of Variance For Personal Chapel

In Milosavlejevic v. City of Brier, (WD Wash., Sept. 7, 2017), a Washington federal district court held that the city of Brier, Washington did not violate RLUIPA when it denied petitioner a height variance so he could build a personal Serbian Orthodox chapel with a 40-foot dome on his property.  The court held that the city had not substantially burdened petitioner's free exercise, saying that he has "ready alternative places of worship at his disposal." It also rejected his RLUIPA equal terms and his Sec. 1983 discrimination claims.

RLUIPA Suits Over Mosque Construction Are Settled

The Justice Department announced yesterday that a settlement agreement (full text) has been reached in United States v. Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania, as well as in a private suit involving the same underlying facts. In the  suit, the Justice Department alleged that the township violated RLUIPA in denying a zoning variance to permit Bensalem Masjid to construct a mosque on property near a commercial area. (See prior posting.)  The agreements call for approval of use of the property and for the Township to amend its zoning ordinances so they are compliant with RLUIPA. Bucks County Courier Times reports on the settlement.

New Suit Challenges Settlement Agreement In Mosque Construction Dispute

As previously reported, in May a settlement was reached in a suit by the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge which charged RLUIPA violations, as well as violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments, in Bernards Township, New Jersey's refusal to grant site plan approval for construction of a mosque.  As part of the settlement agreement (full text), the parties agreed that a Planning Board hearing on the agreement and related mosque construction will be held, and that, among other things, at the hearing "No commentary regarding Islam or Muslims will be permitted." Now a federal lawsuit has been filed challenging this provision of the settlement agreement.  The complaint (full text) in Quick v. Township of Bernards, (D NJ, fled 7/31/2017) alleges that the commentary ban  suppresses speech based on its content; amounts to a prior restraint; violates the Establishment Clause by favoring Islam; and deprives township residents of procedural due process.  Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church Sues Over Zoning Ruling On Use of Building For Christian School

A suit was filed this week in a Virginia federal district court challenging Spotsylvania County officials' contention that a Baptist church must obtain a special use permit in order for the education wing of the church to house an independent Christian high school whose mission is to provide classical education rooted in the tradition of Catholic teaching. The church says the school is one of its ministries and does not require further zoning approval. The complaint (full text) in Zoan Baptist Church v. Spotsylvania County, (ED VA, filed 6/28/2017) alleges that the county ordinance and the way it has been enforced infringes the church's rights under RLUIPA, as well as under the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. Plaintiffs have also filed a Brief in Support of their motion for equitable relief. (Full text of brief).

3d Circuit: Dismissal of Prisoner's RLUIPA Suit At Pleading Stage Was Improper

In Robinson v. Houtzdale, (3d Cir., June 19, 2017), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial court should not have dismissed at the pleading stage a RLUIPA suit by a Christian inmate who objected that the prison's Sex Offenders Therapeutic Community program burdens his religious exercise by requiring him to "confess" to a therapist or counselor.  Plaintiff contended that the Bible does not permit him to confess sins to anyone except God. The court said that the threshold question under RLUIPA is whether a prison practice has substantially burdened an inmate's practice of his religion.  It went on:

we conclude that the Magistrate Judge went too far by analyzing the “truth” of Robinson's beliefs when she determined, based on the pleadings alone, that the sexual offender program did not impose a substantial burden because it did not ask Robinson “to confess in any religious sense.” ... [A]t the pleading stage, we are required under RLUIPA to accept as true Robinson’s sincerely held belief that any acknowledgement of guilt is a religious “confession"....

... [W]hile the District Court may well conclude after considering evidence or testimony on the subject that SCI-Houtzdale’s interest in its sex offenders taking responsibility for their actions as part of its therapeutic program is a “compelling interest” and that there is no less restrictive means for Robinson to meet the goals of the sex offender program, it cannot do so on the basis of the pleadings alone. That is because RLUIPA does not permit “unquestioning deference” to prison administrators....