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.
