Hawaii Chabad Rabbi Sues Over Zoning Law

Suit was filed this week in a Hawaii federal district court by a Chabad rabbi contending that Hawaii County's residential zoning Code violates the First Amendment, the Hawaii Constitution and RLUIPA. The complaint (full text) in Chabad Jewish Center of the Big Island v. County of Hawaii, (D HI, filed 2/13/2024), alleges in part:

 Hawai‘i County Code § 25-5-3(a)(9) allows “[m]eeting facilities” to operate “in [a] RS district” sans any restriction.  Conversely, Hawai‘i County Code § 25-2-61(b)(3) permits “[c]hurches, temples and synagogues” to operate in a RS district “only if a use permit is obtained for use.”  And, critically, use permits are required not only for “[c]hurches, temples and synagogues” themselves but also for the “meeting facilities for churches, temples, synagogues and other such institutions[] in RS . . . districts.” ...  In other words, in residential use districts in Hawai‘i County, meeting facilities are permissible so long as they’re secular....

It is the County’s policy and practice to prosecute supposed violations of Hawai‘i County Code § 25-2-61 only when the violating party hosts Jewish gatherings.  The County’s enforcement decisions are neither neutral nor generally applicable, as other religious and non-religious meetings of comparable size have occurred unmolested in the zoning district of Rabbi Gerlitzky’s home.  The County’s policy of selective enforcement against the Plaintiffs, if left unchecked, will effectively shutter one of the now only two orthodox Jewish gathering spaces on the Big Island.  This policy is enabled by the County’s practice of ratcheting up recurring fines against the Plaintiffs.

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Good News Clubs Sue for Access to Hawaii Schools

Suit was filed two weeks ago in a Hawaii federal district court against the Hawaii Department of Education and four school districts in which schools have denied permission for Good News Clubs to use various school facilities for after-school programs. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Hawaii, Inc. v. Hawaii State Department of Education, (D HI, filed 1/23/2024), alleges that the denials violate plaintiff's free speech, free exercise, Establishment Clause and equal protection rights. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction accompanied by a Memorandum of Law supporting the Motion (full text). Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Hawaii County's Denial of Permit to Temple Did Not Meet Strict Scrutiny Test

In Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui, (D HI, Aug. 11, 2023), in a case that has been in litigation for more than seven years, a Hawaii federal district court entered partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on one issue in the case. It held that the state had not met the strict scrutiny test on plaintiffs RLUIPA, free exercise and equal protection challenges to the denial of a special use permit to allow Spirit of Aloha Temple to use agriculturally-zoned land for a church and several other church-operated facilities including a wedding venue site. The court concluded that the denial was neither narrowly tailored nor the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. However, a number of other issues remain to be decided before determining whether there were statutory or constitutional violations. There remains the question of whether denial of the special use permit imposed a substantial burden on the Temple. According to the court, for purposes of RLUIPA that, in turn, depends on whether plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of being able to build a religious institution on the land when they acquired it. For plaintiffs' federal and state free exercise claims, plaintiffs must show that their operation of the property was rooted in religious belief and that the county had an intent to discriminate. The court went on to hold that the RLUIPA non-discrimination (as opposed to its "substantial burden") provisions do not turn on strict-scrutiny review, but instead on whether there was religious discrimination.  When the regulation is neutral, that requires showing an intent to discriminate.

Deed Restriction Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State of Hawaii, (HI Cir. Ct., March 21, 2023), a Hawaii trial court dismissed a suit seeking to void a deed restriction.  In 1922, the land at issue was conveyed by the Territory of Hawaii to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, with a deed restriction that the land could only be used for church purposes. Under the restriction, the land would revert to Hawaii if it was used for non-church purposes.  In 2000, the land was conveyed to the Hilo Bay Marina, presumably triggering the reversion. Fifteen years later it was conveyed by the Marina to Keaukaha Ministry.  Now the Marina and the Ministry sue to void the deed restriction, among other things contending that it violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. and the Hawaii Constitutions.  The court rejected the claim citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton Schol District, and saying in part:

The Establishment Clause "must be interpreted 'by reference to historical practices and understandings.'"...

The practice of selling government lands with deed restrictions was an early form of use-zoning and is interpreted as a historical practice of zoning....

Even if Article I, §4 of the Hawai'i Constitution is not coextensive with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment..., the deed restriction passes constitutional muster under Lemon v. Kurtzman....

The deed restriction allows for any religious organization to benefit from the property, so it does not endorse or approve one religion over another....

The surveillance and monitoring required to enforce the deed restriction do not present excessive entanglement because they are no different than that of what is required to enforce any other zoning regulation.

General Religious Objection Available Under Hawaii's COVID Mandate

In Pelekai v. State of Hawai'i, (D HI, Oct. 22, 2021), a Hawaii federal district court rejected various challenges to Hawaii state and county mandates that public employees be vaccinated against COVD or else submit to regular testing. One of plaintiffs' objections was to language rejecting any religious exemption based on opposition to "specific vaccinations". The court rejected that claim, saying in part:

The policy ... does not prohibit an employee from making the following objection: “I object to all vaccines that have been developed using aborted fetal cell lines on religious grounds.” The latter is not an objection to a specific vaccine, is not prohibited by Honolulu’s policy, and is the objection Plaintiffs themselves claim to want to make.

Hawaii Mask Mandate Did Not Violate Protester's Free Exercise Rights

 In Denis v. Ige, (D HI, May 12, 2021), a Hawaii federal district court rejected challenges to Hawaii's COVID-19 mask requirements. Plaintiff, who was arrested at a protest for failing to wear a mask, asked for $632 million in damages.  Among other challenges, he asserts that his free exercise rights were violated:

He appears to contend that because the Mask Mandates “infringe[] upon [his] right to breathe oxygen without restriction,” which is “in violation [of his] covenant with his Creator of many names,” the Mask Mandates inhibit his religious practices.

The court concluded that plaintiff failed to allege that the mask mandate imposed a substantial burden on his practice of religion, and the mandate survives rational basis review. The court also rejected other claims, including free speech and freedom of association claims.

Hawaii Supreme Court Approves Manua Kea Telescope

In In re Thirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, (HI Sup. Ct., Oct. 30, 2018), the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the state's Board of Land and Natural Resources allowing a 30 meter telescope to be erected near the summit of Mauna Kea.  Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners believe that Mauna Kea should be kept in its natural state as a sacred manifestation of their ancestry. Hawaii's Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 7) protects the cultural and religious rights of the descendants of Native Hawaiians. The Court's majority opinion by Justice McKenna upheld the agency's finding that while Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners use the summit of Mauna Kea, there is no evidence that they use the Thirty Meter Telescope Observatory site area and the Access Way. The Court also rejected appellants' RLUIPA challenge, holding that RLUIPA does not apply to the government's management of its own land. New York Times reports on the decision. [Thanks to  Kuliaikanu'u Petzoldt for the lead.]

Neither Side Gets Summary Judgment In Hawaii Religious Zoning Dispute

In Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui, (D HI, July 20, 2018), a Hawaii federal district court denied summary judgment motions filed by both parties in a RLUIPA lawsuit challenging denial of a special use permit to build a church and hold religious events (particularly weddings) on land zoned for agricultural use. the court held that significant factual questions remain to be resolved as to the Temple's substantial burden claim, religious discrimination and equal terms claims, as well as its 1st and 14th Amendment assertions. The Temple promotes the practice of "Integral Yoga."

Hawaii Supreme Court Denies Review In Cse of B&B's Refusal To Rent To Lesbian Couple

In an Order (full text) entered July 10, the Hawaii Supreme Court in Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast denied certiorari.  In the case, a Hawaii sate appeals court (see prior posting) held that a 3-room bed & breakfast violated the state's public accommodation law when the B&B owner refused on religious grounds to accept a room reservation from a lesbian couple.  The appeals court also rejected privacy and free exercise defenses. AP reports on the state Supreme Court's denial of review. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

HHS Investigating Legality of Hawaii Notice Requirements For Pregnancy Clinics

An ADF press release on Monday reports that the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has initiated an investigation on behalf of A Place for Women, a limited service pregnancy center in Hawaii.  At issue is the requirement in Hawaii Act 200 enacted last year requiring such centers to disseminate on-site to patients a notice that says in part:

Hawaii has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, including, but not limited to, all FDA-approved methods of contraception and pregnancy-related services for eligible women. To apply online for medical insurance coverage, that will cover the full range of family planning and prenatal care services, go to mybenefits.hawaii.gov.

The letter from HHS to ADF, which filed a complaint with it, says in part:

Under federal regulations, OCR is designated to receive complaints based on federal laws that protect conscience and prevent coercion, including the Weldon Amendment, the Coats-Snowe Amendment, and the Church Amendments.  OCR has reviewed the Complaint and has determined that it has sufficient authority and cause to investigate the allegations under one or more of these laws.

State Appeals Court Rejects Religious Defense By B&B That Rejected Lesbian Couple

In Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast, (HI App., Feb. 23, 2018), a Hawaii sate appeals court held that a 3-room bed & breakfast violated the state's public accommodation law when the B&B owner refused on religious grounds to accept a room reservation from a lesbian couple.  The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The court held that an exemption in a separate housing discrimination statute for small rooming houses does not apply to the public accommodation law.  The court also rejected defendant's state and federal constitutional privacy and free exercise defenses, finding that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.  Hawaii News Now reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Hawaii's Notice Mandate For Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

A suit was filed last week in Hawaii federal district court challenging Hawaii's SB 501 enacted earlier this year that requires "limited service pregnancy centers" to disseminate on-site to patients a notice that says:

Hawaii has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, including, but not limited to, all FDA-approved methods of contraception and pregnancy-related services for eligible women. To apply online for medical insurance coverage, that will cover the full range of family planning and prenatal care services, go to mybenefits.hawaii.gov. Only ultrasounds performed by qualified healthcare professionals and read by licensed clinicians should be considered medically accurate.

The complaint (full text) in Calvary Chapel Pearl Harbor v. Chin, (D HI, filed 7/12/2017), alleges in part:

Plaintiffs are a non-profit, pro-life, Christian church operating a pregnancy center known as A Place for Women ..., and a national non-profit pro-life membership organization with 5 affiliates in Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek to provide help and pro-life information to women in unplanned pregnancies so that they will be supported in choosing to give birth....

The Act, however, imposes government compelled speech upon the Plaintiff pregnancy centers ... in ways that undermine the centers’ messages.

The complaint contends that the law infringes free speech and free exercise of religion, is unconstitutionally vague and violates federal statutory law that protects health care entities from being required to refer patients for abortions. Christian Times reports on the lawsuit.

Hawaii Federal District Court Converts TRO Against Travel Ban To Preliminary Injunction

Yesterday a Hawaii federal district court granted the state of Hawaii's motion to convert its prior temporary restraining order against President Trump's second travel ban Executive Order into a temporary injunction. In State of Hawai'i v. Trump, (D HI, March 29, 2017), the court concluded that "Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim...."  The court said in part:

The Court determined in its TRO that the preliminary evidence demonstrates the Executive Order’s failure to satisfy Lemon’s first test.... As no new evidence contradicting the purpose identified by the Court has been submitted by the parties since the issuance of the March 15, 2017 TRO, there is no reason to disturb the Court’s prior determination.

Instead, the Federal Defendants take a different tack. They once more urge the Court not to look beyond the four corners of the Executive Order.... No binding authority, however, has decreed that Establishment Clause jurisprudence ends at the Executive’s door.

New Suit Challenges Syrian Refugee Ban In Trump Executive Order; Hawaii Suit Moves Ahead

The portion of President Trump's travel ban Executive Order which suspends entry of refugees from Syria into the United States was challenged in a lawsuit filed on Monday in a Wisconsin federal district court by a Sunni Muslim who was granted asylum status because of torture and religious persecution he had
suffered in Syria.  The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Trump, (WD WI, filed 2/13/2017), says that the ban prevents plaintiff from bringing his wife and 3-year old daughter to the U.S. from Syria under a derivative asylum petition which is being processed by the government. The Executive Order prevents USCIS from adjudicating the petition and the State Department from issuing visas to his family.  It also contends that the nationwide temporary restraining order issued by a Washington federal district court is not broad enough to cover this situation because the TRO applies only to enforcement at "United States borders and ports of entry." This new suit alleges that the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses and various statutory provisions. WRN News reports on the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Hawaii's Attorney General announced yesterday that a federal district judge has partially lifted a stay he imposed last week on Hawaii's suit against the Executive Order. This allows an Hawaii resident to be added as a plaintiff.  The court also allowed Hawaii to file an amended complaint (full text) adding a challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. KHON News reports on these developments.

Hawaii Sues Trump Over Travel Ban

Last Friday, the state of Hawaii filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump challenging his Executive Order imposing a travel ban on individuals from seven Muslim countries and imposing a moratorium on refugee admissions. The complaint and Memorandum in Support (full text of press release, complaint and Memorandum in support of TRO) in State of Hawai'i v. Trump, (D HI, filed 2/3/2017) particularly emphasize Establishment Clause concerns with the Executive Order. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support states in part:

The President and his aides have made it abundantly clear that they intend to exclude individuals of the Muslim faith, and that this Order—which bans travel only with respect to certain Muslim-majority countries—is part of that plan....  Sections 5(b) and 5(e) also explicitly direct the government to prioritize religious refugee claims if the “religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country”—a system of religious preference that President Trump told the media was expressly designed to favor Christians....

In the Establishment Clause context, these statements matter. Because Lemon’s first step is concerned with “whether [the] government’s actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion,” courts routinely look to the public declarations of an act’s originator to discern its true aim.

West Hawaii Today reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Rejects RFRA Defense Raised By Hawaii Cannabis Ministers

In United States v. Christie, (9th Cir., June 14, 2016), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of the founder of the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry and his wife on charges of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana.  The court rejected defendants' claim that their convictions violate their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The court held that the government had a compelling interest in mitigating the risk that cannabis from the Ministry would be diverted to recreational users, and that the government achieved that compelling interest in the least restrictive manner. The court said in part:

there is specific evidence that the Ministry’s distribution methods created a realistic possibility that cannabis intended for members of the Ministry would be distributed instead to outsiders who were merely feigning membership in the Ministry and adherence to its religious tenets. Additionally, the government’s interest in this case is all the more compelling given the Ministry’s well-publicized willingness to extend membership in the Ministry (with all that that entails) to minors.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Hawaii Supreme Court Requires New Hearing For Proposed Telescope On Sacred Land

In Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Board of Land and Natural Resources, (HI Sup. Ct., Dec. 2, 2015), the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated on due process grounds a decision by the state's Board of Land and Natural Resources that allowed the University of Hawaii to construct a 30 meter telescope on land sacred to Native Hawaiians.  At issue was a "next generation" large telescope to be built on Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano on the island of Hawaii.  The court held that the Board acted improperly in approving the permit for the telescope, with construction merely delayed until a contested hearing on objections was held.  The majority held that the due process clause of the Hawaii constitution was violated when a contested hearing was not held prior to a decision on granting the permit. A concurring opinion by Justice Pollack, joined by Justice Wilson and joined in part by Justice McKenna, held that the Board's action violated other provisions of the state's constitution as well, including Ar. XII, Sec. 7 that protects cultural and religious rights of descendants of Native Hawaiians.  Christian Science Monitor reports on the decision.

Settlement Requires 1st Amendment Training For Hawaiian Police

On Nov. 16, a Hawaii federal district court approved a settlement agreement (full text) in Goodhue v. County of  Maui. In the lawsuit, a pastor and his wife charged that their First Amendment rights were infringed when police hired to provide security prevented them from handing out religious literature on sidewalks outside the Maui Fair.  As summarized in an ACLU press release:

As part of the settlement agreement, the County of Maui has dropped its appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and, for three years, will conduct additional specialized training for current and new Maui Police Department (“MPD”) officers on upholding the 1st Amendment in public spaces. 

Hawaiian Temple Sues Over Zoning Denial

RLUIPA Defense blog reported this week on a suit filed last November in federal district court in Hawaii by Spirit of Aloha Temple which was denied zoning approval to expand the use of a botanical garden it owns.  The Temple sought to use existing structures on the property for its Integral Yoga observances, including religious services, weddings and educational activities. The complaint (full text) in Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui, D HI, filed 11/26/2014) contends that the denial of permission violates RLUIPA, the 1st and 14th Amendments and Hawaiian constitutional and statutory provisions.

Hawaii Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments On Challenge To Marriage Equality Law

Yesterday the Hawaii Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McDermott v. Abercrombie, a case challenging the state legislature's authority to enact the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013. The Court, on its website, summarizes the issues:

Respondents argue, inter alia, that the Hawai`i Marriage Equality Act is unconstitutional because in 1998, the people of Hawai`i voted to amend article 1, section 23 of the Hawai`i Constitution to state that “the legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Respondents argue that the intent of this amendment was to constitutionally reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples, so the legislature was not authorized to pass the Hawai`i Marriage Equality Act. In response, Petitioners argue that article 1, section 23 allows the legislature to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples, but does not require it to do so. Petitioners also argue that Respondents lacked standing to bring this lawsuit.

An audio recording of the full oral arguments is available from the Court's website. AP reports further on the case.