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....

Church's RLUIPA Zoning Claim Rejected

In New Harvest Christian Fellowship v. City of Salinas, (ND CA, May 29, 2020), a California federal district court rejected a church's claim that the City of Salinas, California's zoning code violates its rights under RLUIPA. In order to stimulate pedestrian friendly commercial activity, the zoning code bans clubs, lodges, places of religious assembly, and similar assembly uses on the ground floor of buildings facing three blocks of Main Street. The city refused to grant zoning amendments to allow the church to use a building it purchased for worship services. The court concluded that the zoning restrictions did not violate either the substantial burden or the equal terms provisions of RLUIPA, saying in part:

New Harvest has not presented any evidence to counter the City’s evidence of feasible alternative locations....

New Harvest’s own evidence establishes that [four theaters permitted in the area] ..., unlike New Harvest, offer numerous activities throughout the week that would reasonably be expected to attract the general public, such as first run films, weddings, concerts, comedy shows, and other events. By contrast, New Harvest offers no evidence that its activities actually draw any non-members, and no evidence that its activities have a positive impact on commercial activity or vibrancy within the Main Street restricted area.

Jewish School Sues Town For Religious Discrimination

A religious discrimination suit was filed in a New York federal district court this week by an Orthodox Jewish girl's school against the Town of Clarkstown, New York charging it with wrongfully preventing the school from purchasing a Baptist Church property.  The complaint (full text) in Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v. Town of Clarkston, (SDNY, filed 2/18/2020), alleges in part:

In early January 2019, in reaction to ABY’s pending permit application following its entry into a contract for the purchase of the Property, Clarkstown Supervisor George Hoehmann, other Clarkstown officials and members of a Rockland County political party, members of CUPON, and CUPON’s counsel met to concoct a plan to prevent ABY’s purchase of the Property.

... In parallel to the manufactured public pressure from CUPON, the Town denied ABY’s permit application through a blatant misapplication of its zoning laws....

Following its knowing interference with and evisceration of ABY’s contract topurchase the  Property and months of delay, the Town purchased the Property for itself. For the Town, this is but the latest example in a demonstrable pattern of wreaking havoc on religious property applicants to prevent their engagement in the Clarkstown community. 

Lower Hudson News reports on the lawsuit.

Zoning Requirement Violates RLUIPA

In Hunt Valley Baptist Church, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, (D MD, Feb. 10, 2020), a Maryland federal district court rejected federalism and Establishment Clause challenges to the constitutionality of RLUIPA against federalism and Establishment Clause challenges.The court went on to hold that the county's zoning ordinances that require a special exception process for churches to build in a conservation zone, but does not require this for schools, violate RLUIPA's equal terms provisions.

Jewish Day School May Move Ahead With Some Claims In Dispute With New York Village

A press release from First Liberty describes the claims that gave rise to an opinion by a New York federal district court last week:

The lawsuit, filed in November 2018, alleges that government officials in the Village of Airmont, New York and the Suffern Central School District engaged in a deliberate effort to dissuade Orthodox Jewish residents from staying in or moving to the Village of Airmont. Central UTA owns 21 acres of property within the Village of Airmont that for nearly 20 years served as both a children’s school and day camp. The Village granted multiple approvals for the private, non-Orthodox school to operate. However, since Central UTA purchased the property in 2016 and advised the Village of its plans to build new buildings, Village officials have repeatedly used discriminatory zoning tactics to prevent Central UTA from operating.

In a similar effort, the local school district, Suffern Central, denied Central UTA children transportation and special education services even though it provided these same services to the previous school.

In Central UTA of Monsey v. Village of Airmont, New York, (SD NY, Jan. 23, 2020), the court held that claims growing out of the attempt to obtain approval for building two new school buildings and renovating an existing building should be dismissed for lack of ripeness. However the court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their RLUIPA, 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment claims growing out of a Notice of Violation issued as to the operation of a school for 200 to 300 students in an existing building and the failure to provide transportation and special needs services. The Notice of Violation placed the school at risk for over $2 million in fines.

2nd Circuit: Rabbinical College Prevails In Part of Its Zoning Law Challenge

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, (2d Cir., Dec. 29, 2019), 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 ("TRC") in a New York village.  The court found that plaintiffs had standing to bring their equal protection claim. It summarized its holding:

TRC and future students and faculty (collectively, “Tartikov”) filed this action against the Village and its board of trustees seeking to declare unconstitutional the two amendments enacted after its plans became known. In addition, it challenged two other amendments that had been passed earlier. After a bench trial, the district court found that all four zoning law amendments were tainted by religious animus, enjoined their enforcement, and entered a broad injunction sweeping away or modifying for these plaintiffs New York State and local laws that otherwise would apply. The Village challenges the decision below. Its central contention is that the findings of religious animus were clearly erroneous. Tartikov cross appeals from a number of pretrialrulings that limited the scope of its claims.

After careful consideration of the extensive record, we decline to overturn the district court’s findings that religious animus motivated the two zoning amendments passed after the plaintiffs’ wishes became known and thus affirm the injunction barring their enforcement. But we respectfully conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support such a finding as to either of the two earlier zoning amendments and therefore reverse that portion of the judgment. We conclude also that the injunctive relief went further than was appropriate and modify those aspects of the judgment as well. We affirm as to the cross-appeal.

Russian Court Liberalizes Allowed Religious Use of Residences

Forum 18 reports this week on a November 2019 decision by Russia's Constitutional Court liberalizing the permissible religious uses of buildings that are zoned for residential purposes. The report explains:

The case followed a fine imposed on Olga Glamozdinova, a Seventh-day Adventist in Rostov Region, for granting free use of a room in her house to her Church and allowing them to use it as its legal address, when the land is designated for personal part-time crop cultivation. This land use permits the construction of a dwelling, but not of a religious building.

Glamozdinova argued that the house is also occupied as a dwelling by an acquaintance who also tends the crops on the plot, and the congregation uses the room for only four hours per week. The fine was upheld on appeal at both district and regional courts, but the Constitutional Court has now ruled that Glamozdinova's fine is subject to review because the law had been incorrectly applied in her case....

The Court stated, however, that religious use of residential premises must take into account the rights and legitimate interests of residents and neighbours, and the requirements of health and safety and environmental protection legislation. The Court also stated that it would be "unacceptable" for a dwelling to lose the features of residential premises and acquire those of a religious or administrative building....

This November 2019 Constitutional Court ruling may lead to fewer fines being imposed on religious organisations and individuals, but this will depend on Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography (Rosreestr) and other officials....

Lighting Regulations Limiting Use of Catholic School's Baseball Field Do Not Violate RLUIPA

In Marianist Province of the United States v. City of Kirkwood, (8th Cir., Dec. 13, 2019), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by Vianney High School in Kirkwood, Missouri that the city's lighting and sound regulations which limit use of its baseball field at night violate its rights under RLUIPA and state law.  The court said in part:

Vianney asserts that various forms of religious exercise “motivate the school’s use” of its baseball field at night. The school emphasizes that athletics is part of the “formation of young men” in the Catholic Marianist tradition and that nighttime sports games allow it to reach out to the community and engage in religious fellowship.... Assuming Vianney’s uses of its baseball field at night ... constitute religious exercise, we examine its claim that the regulations substantially burden this exercise.

Vianney has not demonstrated that its religious exercise is substantially burdened, rather than merely inconvenienced, by its inability to use its baseball field at night.

The court also rejected the school's RLUIPA "equal terms" claim, and held that its state law claims should be dismissed as well.

Supreme Court Review Sought In City Council Speech Limits At Meeting On Mosque

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed on Dec. 9 with the U.S. Supreme Court in Youkhanna v. City of Sterling Heights. In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to the manner in which the city of Sterling Heights, Michigan conducted a raucous city council meeting at which settlement of a RLUIPA lawsuit was being considered.  At issue was the city's settlement of a zoning dispute with backers of a mosque.  City Council placed limits on the scope of comments that citizens could make during the meeting, and eventually cleared the meeting room when the audience became disruptive. (See prior posting.)

Muslim Community Center's Claim of Discrimination In Permitting Process Must Proceed To Trial

In OT, LLC v. Harford County, Maryland, (D MD, Sept. 23, 2019), a Maryland federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to either side on almost all the claims by a Muslim group seeking permits to construct a community center. Plaintiffs contend that delays in approval were motivated by religious discrimination in violation of various constitutional and statutory provisions and imposed a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion in violation of RLUIPA.  The court said in part:

Importantly, “a government decision influenced by community members’ religious bias is unlawful, even if the government decision makers display no bias themselves....

Here, Plaintiffs contend that the sequence of events leading up to the County’s decision, departures from the County’s normal procedures, and contemporary statements by County decision-makers demonstrate that County Defendants’ actions were motived by the community’s anti-Muslim beliefs....

Conversely, County Defendants maintain that their decisions here were motivated by their desire to conform to existing practices and the County Code....

[T]he Court concludes that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the intent of the County Defendants....

The court similarly concluded that there was a genuine dispute of fact on whether the delay imposed a substantial burden on plaintiffs' right of religious exercise.

Justice Department Sues Michigan City Over Mosque Zoning

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the city of Troy, Michigan alleging that it has violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in denying zoning approval for a mosque to be built by Adam Community Center.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. City of Troy, Michigan, (ED MI, filed 9/19/2019), contends in part:

Troy specifically violated RLUIPA by: (a) imposing an unjustified substantial burden on Adam’s exercise of religion when it denied Adam’s variance requests, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1); and (b) requiring places of worship to abide by more onerous setback and parking restrictions than nonreligious places of assembly, id. § 2000cc(b)(1).

Detroit Free Press reports on the lawsuit.

Catholic High School Sues Over Restrictions On Athletic Field Use

A Madison, Wisconsin Catholic high school has filed suit challenging the manner in which the city's zoning code is being applied to the school.  The complaint (full text) in Edgewood High School of the Sacred Heart, Inc. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, (WD WI, filed 8/21/2019), alleges violations of RLUIPA as well as various other federal, state and local constitutional and statutory provisions. Because a master plan filed by the school in connection with the renovation of its athletic field stated that it would be used for team practices and physical education classes, zoning authorities contend that it cannot be used for athletic contests, even though the field had been used for nearly a century to host such games. The complaint alleges:

All of the City’s public high schools and the University of Wisconsin-Madison share the same zoning classification as Edgewood, yet the City is imposing these restrictions on Edgewood alone....

The City has treated Edgewood on less than equal terms with the non-religious institutions located and operating within the City’s Campus-Institutional District. 

 Wisconsin State Journal, reporting on the case, explains:

Edgewood’s attorneys have contended that [the master plan] wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive list of uses, while residents have suggested games were intentionally left out to allay neighbors frustrated with the increased use of the field since it was upgraded in 2015.

Residents of the surrounding Dudgeon-Monroe neighborhood have organized against Edgewood’s attempts to bring further improvements to the field — especially a 2017 plan that would have added stadium seating, lights, a sound system and permanent bathrooms — arguing that the field disrupts their quiet neighborhood. Many put signs in their yard reading, “No new stadium.”

County Sued Over Zoning Denial To Faith-Based Recovery Program

Suit was filed in a Georgia federal district court last week by a ministry offering a faith-based residential program for men recovering from addiction alleging discriminatory action by a county zoning board. the complaint (full text) in Vision Warriors Church, Inc. v. Cherokee County Board of Commissioners, (ND GA, filed 7/15/2019) alleges that the county's denial of zoning approval for operation of plaintiff's recovery program violates the federal Fair Housing Act, the ADA, RLUIPA and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. ACLJ issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Settlement Reached In Christian School's Zoning Fight

A settlement has been reached in Englewood Church of the Nazarene, Inc. v. Sarasota County, Florida. The suit filed in a Florida federal district court in March alleged violations of RLUIPA, the 1st and 14th Amendments and Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. After the school had been operating in a church's building for more than three years, the county demanded that it seek a special exception to continue its operation and levied daily fines on the school. The school spent $10,000 to complete the application, only to have the special exception denied. (See prior posting.)  According to a press release from ADF, in settling the case the county has approved the church's use of its property. A joint stipulation of dismissal (full text) was filed in Florida federal district court on July 22.

New Jersey Town Settles With Native American Tribe Seeking Use of Its Sacred Land

Mahwah Patch reports that a settlement has been reached in four pending cases pitting the Native American Ramapough Lenape Nation against the Township of Ramapough, New Jersey. Three of the cases are land use and zoning claims against the Indian Tribe. The fourth is a federal civil rights suit by the Tribe  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 posting.) Under the settlement agreement, the Tribe can continue to hold community and religious gatherings at its Sweet Water Prayer Site, and the Township will not try to remove the Tribe's sacred prayer circle or stone altar from the site. The settlement also dismisses millions of dollars of fines that had been levied against the Tribe. A civil rights action by the Tribe against the Ramapo Hunt & Polo Club has not been settled. That suit alleges that the Club, which borders the Tribe's Prayer Site, has conspired to deny the Tribe the use of its own land. Center for Constitutional Rights also issued a press release announcing the settlement agreement.

Suit By Purchasers of Former PTL Club Properties May Move Forward

MorningStar Fellowship Church v. York County South Carolina, (D SC, June 17, 2019), involves a dispute between a South Carolina county and a large Christian evangelical church that had purchased properties once owned by PTL Club's Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.  Jim Bakker resigned in the wake of a sexual scandal and was ultimately convicted and imprisoned for fraud. (Background.)  Plaintiff, MorningStar Fellowship, claims that the county prevented it from completing development of an $11 million building, known as the Tower, because of religious animus against the former owners, the Bakkers.  The development agreement between the county and MorningStar Fellowship called for demolition of the Tower if performance and payment bonds were not obtained within 180 days of approval of the site plan for the development. MoruningStar Claims that the county concealed its approval of the site plan in order to create a default.

The court dismissed on statute of limitations grounds MorningStar's claim for damages flowing from violation of its free exercise, due process and equal protection rights. However the court allowed plaintiff to move ahead on claims under the South Carolina constitution and the South Carolina Religious Freedom Act. It also allowed plaintiff to amend its complaint to add substantial burden and discrimination claims under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Court Issues Permanent Injunction In RLUIPA Land Use Case

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City v. City of Mission Woods, (D KS, May 10, 2019), a Kansas federal district court issued a permanent injunction requiring the city of Mission Woods to approve the Catholic Archdiocese's land use application to allow it to convert a house next door to St. Rose Church into a meeting house.  In the case, a jury had found that the city violated the equal terms provisions of RLUIPA and awarded damages.  But the jury found for defendants on the Archdiocese's RLUIPA substantial burden and nondiscrimination claims, its First Amendment claims, and its Kansas state law claims. The court here held that, nevertheless, this amounts to success on the merits which supports the grant of an injunction. The court rejected defendant's argument that limited success on the merits is not enough to support an injunction.

Zoning Accommodation For Homeless Construction Is Upheld

In Ward v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, (TN App., April 17, 2019), a Tennessee state appeals court upheld a local zoning decision granting an accommodate to property owned by a church on which it would build 22 micro-homes to house the homeless. As summarized by the court:

Appellants argue that the development should be subject to the zoning laws and procedures because the development would be constructed, owned, and operated by a lessee of the property that was not a religious institution or assembly or otherwise exercising religion and, consequently, applying the zoning laws to the development would not adversely affect the church’s exercise of religion.

The court held, however:

Given the nature of the project, the lease arrangement between Open Table and GUMC [Glencliff United Methodist Church] does not negate the protection that the statutes provide to GUMC; the project is born out of a common, religiously motivated desire to help the homeless, a cause that is recognized by the church as part of its core mission. Thus, it is entirely appropriate for GUMC to apply for and receive the accommodation allowed by the statutes. 

Charitable Organization Avoids Dismissal of RLUIPA Claims

In Layman Lessons Church v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville/ Davidson County, (MD TN, April 18, 2019), a Tennessee federal district court allowed a religious charitable disaster relief organization to move ahead with many of its claims under RLUIPA and the comparable state statute.  Plaintiff alleges that the city of Nashville discriminated against it through arbitrary enforcement of zoning and building code provisions. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged ... that the actions of Defendant—including, but not limited to, Defendant’s issuance of demolition orders, stop work orders, and storm water orders...; Defendant’s insisting that Plaintiff complete additional repair work and get additional permits than what was previously required; Defendant’s erroneously asserting that a protected stream existed on the property; and Defendant’s erroneously fining Plaintiff for “grading without a permit”—created a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion, in violation of RLUIPA.

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on its religion. Defendant does not mention this discrimination claim. Plaintiff has alleged that it was treated differently than other property owners because it is a religious organization.... Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, that it was treated differently from non-religious property owners.... In addition, for the same reasons, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that it was treated on less than equal terms with a non-religious institution...

DOJ Settles RLUIPA Zoning Claims With Texas City

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has reached an agreement with the City of Farmersville, Texas to resolve allegations that the city violated RLUIPA when in 2017 it denied a Muslim organization approval for construction of a cemetery:

The settlement agreement resolves a lawsuit the United States filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. After the City denied the Islamic Association’s application to build a religious cemetery, the United States opened an investigation of the City’s actions in September 2017. In August 2018, the United States notified the City that it had concluded that the City had violated RLUIPA and intended to file suit, and offered the City an opportunity to negotiate a resolution. In September 2018, the City and the Islamic Association entered into a separate agreement allowing for the approval of the cemetery and in December 2018, the City approved the Islamic Association’s application to develop the land as a cemetery.

Here is the complaint in United States v. City of Farmersville, Texas, (ED TX, filed 4/16/2019) filed yesterday as part of the negotiations.