Texas AG Sues Church-Run Homeless Center Alleging It Has Become a Public Nuisance

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton this week filed a lawsuit in state court against a church-run homeless center that receives over $1 million in funding from the city of Austin. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Sunrise Community Church, Inc. d/b/a Sunrise Homeless Navigation Center, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/26/2024), alleges that the homeless shelter's operations constitute a statutory common nuisance and a common law public nuisance. The complaint says in part:

In South Austin, a once peaceful neighborhood has been transformed by homeless drug addicts, convicted criminals, and registered sex offenders. These people do drugs in sight of children, publicly fornicate next to an elementary school, menace residents with machetes, urinate and defecate on public grounds, and generally terrorize the surrounding community....

The state asks for injunctions closing the homeless center for one year.  It also asks that the center be prohibited from operating within 1,000 feet of any school playground or youth center and from operating in any location "in a manner that frequently attracts patrons whose conduct violates the rights of neighborhood residents, school children, businesses, and the general public to peacefully use and enjoy the surrounding area."

Attorney General Paxton issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Austin American- Statesman reports on the lawsuit.

Anti-Injunction Act Precludes RLUIPA Claim, But Church's Constitutional Claims Move Ahead

 In Resurrection House Ministries, Inc. v. City of Brunswick, (SD GA, Aug. 23, 2024), a Georgia federal district court held that the federal Anti-Injunction Act required dismissal of a RLUIPA lawsuit brought by a Ministry against which the city had filed a nuisance action.  The ministry had attempted to open a shelter for the homeless, to which the city objected. However, the court permitted the Ministry to move ahead with its 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment claims against the city, concluding that the Younger abstention doctrine did not apply. It concluded that plaintiff had adequately alleged that the nuisance action had been brought against it in bad faith, saying in part:

RHM alleges providing a shelter to needy individuals is a tenet of its Christian religion and, therefore, institution of the temporary emergency shelter is a practice of such religion. And practice of RHM’s religion is constitutionally protected by the Free Exercise Clause.... Therefore, RHM has satisfied its burden under the first prong of the Court’s analysis because it has sufficiently alleged that “the conduct allegedly retaliated against or sought to be deterred was constitutionally protected.”...  

The Court also finds that RHM’s allegations are sufficient to set forth that Defendants’ institution of the Nuisance Proceedings “was motivated at least in part by a purpose to retaliate for or to deter that conduct.”

Church Obtains Preliminary Injunction Under RLUIPA Allowing Its On-Site Shelter Program to Continue

In Church of the Rock, Inc. v. Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, (D CO, July 19, 2024), a Colorado federal district court granted a church a preliminary injunction preventing the Town of Castle Rock from interfering with the church's use of an RV and a trailer on church property in its On-Site Temporary Shelter Ministry. The court said in part:

The Town argues that the Church’s RLUIPA claim is not likely to succeed because the applicable zoning regulations do not substantially burden the Church’s exercise of its religious beliefs.... The Town instead characterizes the nature of the burden as a “mere inconvenience” and suggests that the Church could find other ways to satisfy its religious compulsion to provide for the needy, such as by providing hotel rooms or housing in other areas that are zoned for residential use.... It also suggests that finding a substantial burden in this case “effectively would be granting an automatic exemption to religious organizations from generally applicable land use regulations.”

The Church responds that its religious beliefs don’t just obligate it to provide for the needy in some general way; they obligate it to provide for the needy on Church property....

The Church has carried its burden on this question.... Although the Town alludes to a bit of a disconnect between the Church’s assertion that it is compelled to allow the poor to “live among you” and its desire to have people live in RVs on Church grounds rather than in homes and residential areas where Church members live, it does not ultimately dispute the sincerity of the Church’s assertions on this point, which are supported by sworn affidavits....

(See prior related posting.)  CBS News reports on the decision.

Church Sues Town Over Zoning Objections to Temporary Shelter Ministry

Suit was filed last week in a Colorado federal district court by a non-denominational Christian church challenging a town's claim that the church's Temporary Shelter Ministry violates the town's zoning ordinance. The complaint (full text) in Church of the Rock, Inc. v. Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, (D CO, filed 5/13/2024) alleges that the church's rights under the First Amendment as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act are violated by the town's objections to the church's use of an RV and a trailer in the church's parking lot as temporary or emergency shelter for homeless families. The church also claimed unlawful retaliation by the town. Plaintiff additionally filed a Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (full text). First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Church Sues City Over Operation of Ministry for Homeless

Suit was filed yesterday in an Ohio federal district court seeking to enjoin the city of Bryan, Ohio from enforcing its zoning ordinances in an attempt to prevent a Christian church that ministers to the homeless from remaining open 24-hours a day. The complaint (full text) in Dad's Place of Bryan, Ohio v. City of Bryan, (ND OH, filed 1/22/2024), contends that the city has begun "a coordinated effort to exclude ministries from operating downtown." The city has charged the church's pastor with 18 criminal counts for allowing homeless to reside on the property for an extended amount of time in violation of zoning rules. The Church in its complaint contends that the city has violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, RLUIPA, the Fair Housing Act and the Ohio Constitution. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: Friendly Atheist has additional background on the city's concerns regarding the church's activities.

Faith-Based Resource Center for Homeless Sues Over Right to Serve Snacks to Its Clients

Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court by a Resource Cener for impoverished and disabled individuals alleging that the city of Santa Ana has violated its rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment by insisting that it stop serving snacks to its clients in order to receive a Certificate of Occupancy, even though it had been operating without one for 15 years.  The complaint (full text) in Micha's Way v. City of Santa Ana, (CD CA, filed 1/30/2023), asks for an injunction and declaratory relief.  Voice of OC, reporting on the lawsuit, summarizes the allegations in the 44-page complaint:

For years, homeless people would come by the red roof house on 4th Street in Santa Ana for help with the basics: Personal documents, mail collection, maybe motel vouchers on a good day.

And on their way back out the door, they’d likely take a pastry from the faith-based center called Micah’s Way — a small parting token in the service of Christian ministry, but an unpermitted property use in the eyes of Santa Ana city officials....

On Monday, Micah’s Way attorney Edmond Connor filed a lawsuit against the city, citing federal protections for religious exercises like feeding and sheltering the homeless.

It accuses city officials of scapegoating Micah’s Way for neighborhood impacts from a nearby needle exchange program.

Arrest Of Parishioners For Wrongful Eviction Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Colorado Springs Fellowship Church v. City of Colorado Springs,  (D CO, Feb. 4, 2022), a Colorado federal district court dismissed  RLUIPA as well as 1st and 14th Amendment claims against the city and various law enforcement officials brought by a church and eight of its parishioners.  The church leased an apartment that was to be for the use of members who were in need of housing but could not afford to rent a habitable dwelling.  Amisha and Nicholas Gainer were identified as occupants of the Apartment in the lease. The church found that the Gainers had been acting in violation of the lease. Instead of following a formal eviction route, church members merely showed up at the apartment to move the Gainers out.  The Gainers threatened the parishioners with a gun and baseball bat.  The parishioners then retreated and called the police. When the police arrived, they arrested the parishioners, who now are suing. Dismissing plaintiffs' RLUIPA claim, the court said in part:

Defendants argue ... that their conduct ... has no relation to land use regulations and consequently does not fall within the scope of the statute....  Plaintiffs argue that the actions of the DAO and the CSPD were premised on the Plaintiffs’ failure to secure an eviction proceeding within the land use laws of the City..... Further, Plaintiffs argue that “leasing [the Apartment] (and all actions attendant thereto) were as much a part of its religious actions as a Sunday Service.”...

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ allegations do not implicate any land use regulations, as defined by the statute.

Court Rejects Religious and Other Challenges To Takeover Of Abandoned Homes

Honkala v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,  (ED PA, Jan. 31, 2022) involves an unsuccessful challenge to the Philadelphia Housing Authority's (PHA) attempted eviction of homeless families who took over abandoned vacant housing owned by PHA.  A community activist and the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign staged a series of such takeovers.  Among the challenges raised by plaintiffs were religious freedom claims under RFRA and RLUIPA. The court explains:

[Plaintiffs assert] they are “currently possessed of ethical, moral, humanitarian and/or religious belief(s) and action(s), including but not limited to those rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition of caring for the least and most needy amongst us, which federal law therefore respects and identifies as a ‘religious belief’ pursuant to the definition thereof as set forth in 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-5.”... Plaintiffs allege that their work “building and/or repairing and/or converting real property, such as the public housing property at issue…is therefore considered a ‘religious exercise,’ and Defendants are unable to satisfy their “burden of proving that eviction is the least restrictive means of fostering any compelling interest it may otherwise invoke.....

The Pennsylvania federal district court rejected plaintiffs' RFRA claim because RFRA applies only to actions of the federal government and not to that of states and municipalities.  While PHA holds the property in trust for HUD, HUD did not cause their injuries.  The court also rejected plaintiffs" RLUIPA claim because the claim does not involve a zoning issue and because plaintiffs have no property interest in the house.  The court additionally rejected several other legal theories put forward by plaintiffs, but said in part:

As a means of focusing attention on governmental failure to make effective use of assets available to reduce homelessness, this action succeeds. And if principles of natural law provided the controlling standard, Plaintiffs would have a compelling moral argument: “In cases of need, all things are common property, so there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.2, Question 66, Article 7. But civil law is not designed to answer such ultimate moral questions.

Church Challenges City's Limits On Its Offering Meals To Homeless

Suit was filed last week in an Oregon federal district court by a church challenging a city's ordinance that limits it from offering free meals to the needy more than two days per week.  The complaint (full text) in  St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church v. City of Brookings, (D OR, filed 1/28/2022), says that the new limits were imposed after city residents complained of the homeless gathering around the church. It contends that the restrictions violate RLUIPA as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments, saying in part:

Plaintiffs believe that God and scripture have directed them to continue serving their community by offering St. Timothy’s meal program more than two days per week to ensure that people in need can have access to at least one hot, nutritious meal every day of the week.

... The City’s land use and zoning regulations ... deny and restrict, and will deny and restrict, Plaintiffs’ religious use of St. Timothy’s’ property, is not supported by a compelling government interest, and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling governmental interest.

Reason reports on the lawsuit.

10th Circuit: Parolee May Move Ahead In Suit Challenging His Placement In Christian Housing

In Janny v. Gamez, (10th Cir., Aug. 6, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parolee, who is an atheist, should be able to move ahead with his Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims growing out of a requirement that in order to stay out of jail he stay at a Christian homeless shelter and participate in its religious programming.  The court said in part:

[W]hile the Lemon test remains a central framework for Establishment Clause challenges, it is certainly not the exclusive one.... And claims of religious coercion, like the one presented here, are among those that Lemon is ill suited to resolve. Lee [v. Weisman] teaches that a simpler, common-sense test should apply to such allegations: whether the government “coerce[d] anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” ...

Mr. Janny argues that Officer Gamez’s written parole directive to abide by the Mission’s “house rules as established,”... shows the State required him to participate in the Mission’s religious programming.... These facts establish a genuine dispute as to whether the State, through Officer Gamez, acted not just to place Mr. Janny in the Mission, but to place him specifically into the Christian-based Program....

The record [also] allows Mr. Janny to reach the jury on his claim that Officer Gamez burdened his right to free exercise by allegedly presenting him with the coercive choice of obeying the Program’s religious rules or returning to jail.

The court also rejected defendants' qualified immunity defenses. 

Judge Carson dissented in part, contending that the director of the Mission should not be liable as a state actor.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Food Ordinance Does Not Violate Rights Of Christians Distributing Sandwiches

In Redlich v. City of St. Louis, (ED MO, July 22, 2021), a Missouri federal magistrate judge dismissed a suit by two officers of the New Life Evangelical Center who, as part of their religious obligation, conduct outreach to the homeless.  They seek an injunction to prevent enforcement of a city ordinance that bans the distribution of “potentially hazardous foods” to the public without a temporary food permit. Plaintiffs were cited for distributing bologna sandwiches without a permit. The court rejected free exercise, free speech, freedom of association, equal protection and other challenges by plaintiffs, saying in part:

Plaintiffs have not established that the Ordinance constitutes a substantial burden on their free exercise rights. Assuming that food sharing is a central tenet of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, the evidence does not show that enforcement of the Ordinance prohibits Plaintiffs’ meaningful ability to adhere to their faith or denies Plaintiffs reasonable opportunities to engage in fundamental religious activities....

Plaintiffs show that the Ordinance certainly limits their ability to express their message in distributing sandwiches, but admit there is nothing about bologna sandwiches specifically that inherently expresses their religion. The facts show that in the alternative to obtaining a charitable feeding permit, Plaintiffs can and have distributed other types of food, bottled water, clothes, literature, and offered community and prayer without providing food subject to the Ordinance...

The record supports that the City enacted the Ordinance to adopt the National Food Code for public health and safety reasons, not to curtail a religious message. Thus, the Ordinance and its Amendment are content neutral and generally applicable....

Appellate Court Narrows Ruling Allowing Clearing Of Homeless Encampments

In State of Ohio ex rel. New Prospect Baptist Church v, Rulehlman (OH App., Dec. 20, 2019), an Ohio state appellate court, narrowed an injunction previously issued by a trial court.  The city of Cincinnati had allowed homeless encampments to be created.  In a suit against the city, it was alleged that these presented a hazard to health and safety and constituted a nuisance. Agreeing with that contention, the trial court held that city and county law enforcement authorities could to clear homeless encampments throughout the city and county.  New Prospect Baptist Church, which was not a party to the trial court action, sued to prevent enforcement of the injunction against its use of its 4-acre site in the city as a refuge for the homeless. The appellate court issued a writ of prohibition requiring the trial court to narrow its injunction. The appeals court said in part:

[The trial judge's] permanent injunction is unauthorized by law to the extent that respondent seeks to enjoin actions by private nonparties, not found to be aiding or abetting a named defendant, within the city limits of Cincinnati, and by any entity outside the city limits of Cincinnati. Respondent’s orders imposing additional health and safety conditions on entities like New Prospect are similarly unauthorized by law.

City Beat, reports on the decision.

Settlement Reached In Suit Over Homeless Shelter

A settlement has been reached in the RLUIPA lawsuit filed last month (see prior posting) by the Shawnee Mission Unitarian Universalist Church against the city of Lenexa, Kansas over denial of zoning approval for an overnight winter homeless shelter. According to a press release from the church's law firm, the settlement agreement allows the shelter to operate from Dec. 13 to April 1, with various conditions.  In addition the city has agreed to work with the Church to produce an ordinance within the next 3 years to allow homeless ministries in city.

Cert. Denied In Boise Ban On Sleeping Outdoors

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Boise, ID v. Martin, (Docket No. 19-247, certiorari denied 12/16/2019). (Order List.) In the case the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th Amendment bars a city from criminalizing sleeping outdoors on public property when homeless people have no option to sleep indoors, including where their access to a shelter is conditioned on their participating in religious programs. (See prior posting.) Los Angeles Times has an Opinion piece on the case.

Church Sues Under RLUIPA To Operate Homeless Shelter

The Shawnee Mission Unitarian Universalist Church has filed a RLUIPA lawsuit against the city of Lenexa, Kansas which has denied the church zoning approval to operate an overnight homeless shelter for the winter months.  According to KCUR News, the church, in cooperation with the nonprofit Project 1020, wants to use the former elementary school building in which it is located as a shelter for up to 40 people. The building now is zoned residential single family, though it borders commercial and office properties. Lexana has no areas zoned for homeless shelters.

Village Sues Church Over Its Homeless Shelter

RNS reports that the affluent Chicago suburb of Village of Orland Park has filed suit against Hope Covenant Church seeking to close down its homeless shelter== the first in the village in over 30 years.  According to RNS:

With temperatures dipping down near the single digits, the seasonal shelter has housed between 15 and 50 people one night every week, including a toddler and local public high school students.

The overnight shelter, the result of a partnership with Illinois’ Beds Plus community organization, is open every Tuesday until April — unless a lawsuit by The Village of Orland Park succeeds in closing it down.

Last week, Village attorneys filed a lawsuit against the church, arguing that the shelter “constitutes an ongoing threat to public health and safety.” The lawsuit cited 28 health and safety code violations caused by the church using the building, which was intended solely for religious services, as an overnight shelter.

Suit By Mennonite Group Over Lockers For Homeless Is Settled

The Rocky Mountain Collegian yesterday reported on the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship against the city of Fort Collins after City Council added restrictions on the Fellowship's locker program for the homeless.  The city limited the hours of operation and required constant supervision of the lockers during those hours.  The Fellowship sued claiming that the restrictions are unreasonable, vague, overly burdensome and prevent the church from practicing its religious obligation of helping those less fortunate. According to the paper's report, a negotiated settlement has been reached, but must still be approved by City Council at its Sept. 3 meeting:

The City will pay a negotiated amount of $60,000 to FCMF’s lawyers to cover some of the costs incurred during the lawsuit.

As for the locker program, access hours are expanded to 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., and a church representative no longer has to supervise during all hours of operation. Lockers will still be physically restricted outside those hours, but guests may access their belongings if a church representative unlocks the lockers for them. 

The church’s surveillance camera, installed early on in the program, will continue running 24/7. Footage will be retained for seven days.

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. 

Settlement Reached In Church's Suit Over Homeless Shelter Restrictions

Twin Cities Pioneer Press reports that on Wednesday the St. Paul, Minnesota City Council approved a settlement in a lawsuit filed against it by First Lutheran Church over hosting Listening House, a day shelter for the homeless, in the Church's basement.  Last July, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction as to two of the conditions imposed on the use. (See prior posting.) A settlement was reached with Listening House in December. Under this week's settlement with the Church, the city agrees to alert religious institutions on its zoning forms of their RLUIPA rights, and to conduct a study of better procedures for land use applications by religious institutions. [Thanks to Evan Berquist for the lead.]

Pastor Sues To Access Homeless Encampment

The Episcopal Diocese of Olympia reports on a lawsuit filed in a Washington federal district court on Monday against the city of Aberdeen, Washington by an Episcopal priest and two others over access to a homeless encampment. The city has purchased the land and intends to clear it, but in the meantime is requiring anyone entering the site to obtain a permit. Rev. Sarah Monroe, who was denied a permit, explains the lawsuit:

My permit to visit this encampment was denied by the city on the grounds that I did not provide enough detail, or a schedule, or a clear list of what I intend to do during my visits. I am a priest. I have been pastoring the people in this camp for five years. I do everything from drive people to the hospital, to prayer, to taking people to social service appointments, to performing last rites when people die here. These essential pastoral duties do not happen on a schedule, as any member of the clergy can attest. I have continued to visit people, even though I have been denied a permit, and am petitioning the court to prevent the city from arresting me.

Homeless people have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religious expression. I have a constitutionally protected right to my freedom of religious expression, which includes serving the poor and the sick and the hungry.