Latest Attempt to Prevent City from Removing Cross from Public Park Fails On Procedural Grounds

Lion's Club of Albany, California v. City of Albany, (ND CA, March 9, 2023), is the latest installment in the ongoing litigation over the removal of a 28-foot tall, illuminated Latin cross located in a park which the city has purchased. (See prior related posting.) The Lioin's Club has an easement allowing it access to the cross to maintain it. After a prior decision finding that the city violated the Establishment Clause when it purchased the park and left the cross standing, the city instituted eminent domain proceedings in state court to acquire the easement so it could remove the cross. The state trial court judge granted the city prejudgment possession of the easement so the city could take down the cross and store it in a safe place pending the outcome of the eminent domain proceedings. The Lion's Club asked the state court of appeals to stay the trial court's order. That petition was denied for technical reasons that could have been cured. Instead, the Lion's Club came back to federal court seeking a temporary restraining order to prohibit removal of the cross.  In this decision, the court denied that request invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which requires a federal court to dismiss a case when the plaintiff is essentially attempting to appeal a state court decision through the lower federal courts rather than by filing appeals through state court channels.

Cross On Park Land Must Remain While State Court Reconsiders Its Eminent Domain Ruling

 In Lions Club of Albany, California v. City of Albany, (ND CA, Nov. 17, 2022), a California federal district court clarified its 2018 ruling in which it held that the city of Albany violated the Establishment Clause by acquiring for a public park a 1.1 acre parcel of land that includes a large cross. Originally the cross was on private property, and the Lion's Club held an easement to maintain the 20-foot high cross and to illuminate it each Christmas and Easter. In its earlier ruling the court said that the city could cure its Establishment Clause problem in one of several ways, one of which was by taking the Lion's Club easement by eminent domain. (See prior posting.) In May 2022, the city began state court eminent domain proceedings.  The state court permitted the city to take prejudgment possession of the Lion's Club easement and take down the cross and store it in a safe place. The Lion's Club than filed the present federal court action seeking a preliminary injunction, contending that its free speech and free exercise rights were being violated. The court said in part:

The City wants to keep the park and remove the cross, not sell the land. Further, as revealed at our hearing, there is and has been no current offer by the Lions Club to purchase a parcel that includes the cross. These considerations are relevant in weighing hardships and, as explained above, the question of provisional relief is wholly in the hands of the [state court] Judge Chatterjee. He is free to rule either way without offending any order or dictum by this court. 

At our hearing, however, it also developed that the City cannot say with any certainty whether it can put the cross back up after its provisional removal, should the City ultimately lose the eminent domain jury trial.... Thus, as the Court sees things, this is not just a decision merely pending litigation, but rather practically, once the cross is down, it is down for good. This raises a serious exercise of religion problem and in considering this issue, Judge Chatterjee’s ruling appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of this Court’s prior ruling. Therefore, until such time as Judge Chatterjee can reassess the motion for prejudgment possession, taking into consideration the correct understanding of the June 2018 Order, removal of the cross is ENJOINED.

Eminent Domain Violated Rights of Chabad

In Chabad Lubavitch of the Beaches, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of  Atlantic Beach, (ED NY, Sept. 6, 2022), a New York federal district court granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that an attempt to acquire the property of a Jewish religious group by eminent domain likely violated the group's 1st Amendment free exercise rights. Chabad acquired the property in order to build a center on it. Eminent domain proceedings were initiated shortly after Chabad held a Menorah lighting ceremony on the property. The court explained:

[T]he Village’s acquisition decision was made in a manner intolerant of Chabad’s members’ religious beliefs and which would restrict Chabad’s practices because of its religious nature. Thus, the Village’s acquisition decision was targeted and not done neutrally, thereby requiring the Court to apply strict scrutiny in deciding whether that decision is constitutionally permissible. 

... The Village never inquired from the Property’s prior owner whether he was interested in selling the Property ... notwithstanding it being adjacent to and/or in very close proximity to Village-owned and controlled properties and it having sat vacant for three years, with a prominent “For Sale” sign having been erected in front of the Property for the last two of those three years.... Instead, for vague reasons, not strongly supported by direct evidence ... the Village’s apparent urgency to acquire the Properties intensified during the same time when Chabad purchased the Property....

Further, the several anti-Semitic comments posted to the FB Group page after the January 10 open meeting, i.e., community member comments, add to the suspicion caused by the timing of events and call into question the Village’s stated motivation for acquiring the Property by eminent domain....  [O]ne of the Village Trustees, was an administrator/monitor of the FB Group; thus, it is difficult not to conclude that at least one member of the Village Board was aware of several strong opponents to Chabad’s presence in the Village, based upon impermissible religious animus.

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.

Religious Order Loses Attempt to Stop Pipeline

In Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co., LLC v. Permanent Easement for 2.14 Acres, (ED PA, Aug. 23, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that Transcontinental Pipeline Co. has the right to condemn and take immediate possession of property of the Adorers of Christ religious order so that the company can build its Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline.  The court said in part:

Adorers claim that they "exercise their religious beliefs by, among other things, caring for and protecting the land they own," and that their efforts to "preserve the sacredness of God's Earth" are integral to the practice of their faith.  However, the Adorers have failed to establish how Transco's possession of the right of way on their land will in any way affect their ability to practice their faith and spread their message. They have not presented one piece of evidence that demonstrates how their religious beliefs will be abridged in any way.

Do State RFRAs Apply To Eminent Domain Proceedings?

The Daily Signal this week reports on a lawsuit in Houston, Texas making innovative use of the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to challenge an eminent domain proceeding.  The Houston Housing Authority is seeking to take two empty parcels of land belonging to the Latter Day Deliverance Revival Center as part of an urban renewal project.  The church says it acquired the parcels as part of a future expansion plan for the church, and that it uses the land for ministry activities. The church filed suit arguing that the Housing Authority must meet the compelling interest/ least restrictive means tests of RFRA before it may take the property which the church refuses to sell. Applying RFRA standards would make its acquisition extremely difficult.

Orlando Moves Ahead To Take Church Property By Eminent Domain For Soccer Stadium

At its January 27 meeting (Council Minutes), Orlando, Florida City Council approved the use of eminent domain to acquire the property of Faith Deliverance Temple by eminent domain if negotiations with the church are not successful. As reported by the Orlando Sentinel (Jan. 31), the church is the last parcel needed by the city for construction of an $84 million Major League Soccer Stadium. Orlando has been awarded a major league expansion team for 2015. (Background.) In a decision last Friday, a Florida trial court judge ruled that two other parcels needed for the stadium can be taken by eminent domain, finding that the stadium is a legitimate public purpose. In negotiations, the city has offered Faith Deliverance Temple $1.5 million for its property, over  two times its appraised value. The family that owns the church building says it wants $35 million.