In Zikar Holdings, LLC v. Ruhland, (D MN, Dec. 26, 2024), a Minnesota federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the city of Lino Lakes from enforcing a one-year moratorium on development of an area of the city where plaintiffs had proposed to build a housing development that included a mosque. Plaintiffs contended that the moratorium was motivated by discriminatory intent in violation of the free exercise clause, RLUIPA and the Fair Housing Act. The court said in part:
Here, Plaintiffs are likely to show that the Moratorium might have delayed Plaintiffs’ ability to build a place of worship and potential future residences near it in the northwest corner of Lino Lakes. The language of the Moratorium, however, places no permanent restrictions on Plaintiff’s ability to build anything and, perhaps more importantly, it places no restriction on Plaintiff’s ability to seek development of a mosque elsewhere in the City or to worship elsewhere in the City. Plaintiffs have therefore not shown that they are likely to prove the Moratorium was a “substantial burden” on their ability to practice Islam....
On this evidence, the Court believes a reasonable juror could infer that the Moratorium was pretextual. However, the evidence presented at this stage, prior to discovery, is not so strong that it satisfies the heightened Rounds standard. The motives and beliefs of the council members, as well as the basis for the timing of the Moratorium decision remain unknown at this stage, and absent additional circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that supporting the Moratorium reflected the importance of complying with the 2040 Plan and prudent infrastructure and resource planning. Thus, the Court concludes that this factor is neutral, weighing neither in favor of nor against granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion.....
