India's Supreme Court Orders Stay While It Considers Constitutionality of Place of Worship Act

The Hindu reports on a controversial Order issued yesterday by India's Supreme Court. The Order bars lower courts from accepting new lawsuits or entering orders in pending suits in which Hindu plaintiffs are attempting to reclaim temples destroyed by the Mughal Empire in the 16th century. Eighteen suits involving ten Muslim religious shrines are pending in lower courts. In 1991, India's Parliament passed the Place of Worship Act which prohibits the conversion of any place of worship into a place of worship for a different religion and provides that "the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day." The Supreme Court is currently considering the constitutionality of the Place of Worship Act. It Order is designed to prevent a race in which lower courts attempt to issue orders ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling on the 1991 law. According to The Hindu:

Recently, Chief Justice Khanna’s Bench had to intervene after violence broke out and lives were lost in Sambhal following a local court order to survey the Shahi Jama Masjid site. The civil judge had passed an order on the basis of a suit that the mosque was built on a temple demolished by Mughal emperor Babar in 1526.

Muslim Call to Prayer Can Be Amplified In New York City

Yesterday, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a new initiative to permit mosques to broadcast the call to public prayer on Fridays and during Ramadan. According the announcement from the Mayor's office:

 “Today, we are cutting red tape and saying clearly that mosques and houses of worship are free to amplify their call to prayer on Fridays and during Ramadan without a permit necessary....

... The NYPD’s new legal guidance clarifies for mosques and masjids that the call to prayer is allowed in New York City and not prohibited despite sound restrictions in city neighborhoods.

Under the new guidance, a mosque or masjid can broadcast the call to prayer every Friday between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM as well as during the sunset prayers every evening during Ramadan....

The NYPD Community Affairs Bureau and Muslim faith leaders will work collaboratively in every neighborhood with mosques and masjids to communicate the new plans for Adhan to local community leaders and stakeholders. They will work to ensure that any sound device used to broadcast an Adhan is set at appropriate decibel levels and in accordance with the rules of the noise code within the city’s administrative code.

Special Permit Requirement Only For Houses Of Worship Violates 1st Amendment

In Omar Islamic Center Inc. v. City of Meriden, (D CT, Sept. 30, 2022), a Connecticut federal district court held that a zoning regulation that required places of worship to obtain a special permit to operate in areas zoned M-4 (Planned Industrial District) violates plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise rights. Plaintiff sought to use a vacant commercial building as a mosque. The court said in part:

Regulations allowed hotels, motels, and convention centers, as well as numerous shops and stores including bakeries, restaurants, and theaters, to operate as of right in the M-4 district, without needing to apply for a special permit.... Places of worship, however, were required to obtain a special permit before opening their doors. It is clear to the Court that, under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in Tandon, at least some comparable secular activities were therefore treated more favorably than religious activities under the Regulations. Thus, the law is not neutral and generally applicable under free exercise principles, and it must be examined with strict scrutiny.

Defendants have not defended the law under either a rational basis or strict scrutiny standard. In fact, they have proffered no rationale underlying the law whatsoever.

The court also found that the regulation violated plaintiff's equal protection rights. The court refused to pass on plaintiff's RLUIPA claims because it was unclear whether or not plaintiff had an actual property interest in the building.

Suit By Mosque Over Zoning Denials Can Move Ahead

In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, Sept. 28., 2022), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA and constitutional claims against the city of Troy, Michigan. Plaintiff alleged wrongful denial of necessary zoning variances so plaintiff could use its property for Muslim religious services and classes. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has identified pieces of circumstantial evidence that may lead a fact-finder to conclude Troy acted with discriminatory animus towards Muslims. Thus, a question of fact on this claim exists and summary judgment is denied....

[T]here exists a question of fact for trial as to whether ZO § 6.21 was actually applied in a neutral manner or whether it was applied for the purpose of excluding Muslim assemblies from Troy...

The record contains ample evidence to support Adam’s contention that Troy’s stated reasons for denying Adam’s variance application were pretextual and intended to prevent Adam from opening a mosque in the City. Thus, a factfinder could conclude that Adam’s constitutional rights were violated.

The court previously concluded that the city had violated the equal terms and substantial burden provisions of RLUIPA, and now ordered a hearing on damages for those violations. Detroit News reports on the decision.

NY AG Orders Anti-Muslim Group To Stop Spying On The Muslim Community

 In an April 1 press release, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that the office's Civil Right Bureau has sent a Cease and Desist Notification (full text) to an "anti-Muslim hate group" warning it to stop its discriminatory surveillance of the Muslim community. The Notification says in part:

The New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has reviewed reports alleging that your organization, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), used paid informants and infiltrators to spy on Muslim houses of worship, Muslim advocacy groups, and prominent Muslim leaders. You are advised that such conduct could violate the New York Civil Rights Law and other state and federal laws. You are hereby instructed to cease and desist any ongoing or contemplated unlawful espionage operations against Muslims and Muslim organizations within the State of New York. Discrimination has no place in New York. The OAG will use every tool at its disposal to protect Muslim New Yorkers against unlawful intimidation campaigns.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Michigan City Violated RLUIPA In Applying Special Requirements On Places Of Worship

In United States v. City of Troy, (ED MI, March 18, 2022), a Michigan federal district court enjoined the city of Troy, Michigan from enforcing its zoning ordinance that imposes stricter setback and parking standards on places of worship than it does on non-religious uses in the same zoning district. The Zoning Board of Appeal refused to grant a variance from these requirements to the Islamic Adam Community Center. The court held that the city had violated the "equal terms" provisions of RLUIPA, saying in part:

While it may be true that places of worship do cause some of the negative impacts to which Troy refers—a high number of visitors, traffic influxes during short periods of time, safety considerations due to increased traffic, and nuisances such as increased noise, light, or exhaust fumes—Troy fails to provide evidence as to how exactly these concerns are unique with respect to places of worship and not similar institutions such as schools or banquet halls.

The court also concluded that the city had violated the "substantial burden" provisions of RLUIPA.  [Thanks to John Kulesz for the lead.]

Consent Decree Entered In Suit Claiming Religious Discrimination In Action Against Mosque Construction

 A consent decree (full text) was entered yesterday in a Mississippi federal district court in Abraham House of God and Cemetery, Inc. v. City of Horn Lake, (ND MS, Jan. 3, 2022). The suit alleged that the City of Horn Lake denied approval of the site plan for a proposed mosque because of religious animus. (See prior posting.) The consent decree requires the city to approve the site plan within two weeks, and to act promptly on future applications for permits relating to construction of the mosque.  ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the consent decree.

Mississippi City Is Sued Over Refusal To Approve Mosque Site Plan

Suit was filed yesterday in a Mississippi federal district court alleging that the City of Horn Lake denied approval of the site plan for a proposed mosque because of religious animus. The suit alleges violation of various provisions of RLUIPA as well as the 1st Amendment. The complaint (full text) in Abraham House of God and Cemetery, Inc. v. City of Horn Lake, (ND MS, filed 11/3/2021) alleges in part:

Despite the pretextual excuses for their decision, Board members did not work very hard to hide the true reason they denied approval for the project—anti-Muslim prejudice. As then Alderman John E. Jones Jr. told the local newspaper: “I don’t care what they say, their religion says they can lie or do anything to the Jews or gentiles because we’re not Muslims.” In making his motion to reject the mosque’s proposed site plan, Jones ominously warned his fellow Board members, “[I]f you let them build it, they will come. So I think we need to stop it before it gets here.”...

In sum, what should have been an uncomplicated approval of the site plan for the Abraham House of God foundered in a storm of anti-Muslim bias.

ACLU of Mississippi issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

No Judgment On Pleadings In Mosque's RLUIPA Lawsuit

In Minhal Academy of Turnersville, Inc. v. Township of Washington,(D NJ, Aug. 25, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings in a RLUIPA challenge to the Township's refusal to allow a mosque to continue to operate in a commercial condominium complex. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ denial of a use variance has made their religious exercise inconvenient and costly, but nothing more. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiffs’ motion on this ground because they have not conclusively shown that Defendants’ denial caused them substantial hardship....

Plaintiffs are not entitled to judgment on the pleadings on their equal terms claim because the Complaint does not identify a “nonreligious assembly or institution” that received comparatively better treatment under the zoning laws at issue here....

[I]n order to establish their RLUIPA nondiscrimination claim, Plaintiffs must show that the Township treated Plaintiffs worse than non-Muslim comparator institutions because Plaintiffs are Muslim.... 

Ultimately the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ fact intensive RLUIPA nondiscrimination claim should be resolved with a complete factual record.

Zoning Board Members Have Qualified Immunity In Mosque's Suit

In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, Aug. 26,2020), a Michigan federal district court held that members of a city's Zoning Board of Appeal who voted to deny a zoning variance sought by a mosque are entitled to qualified immunity in a suit against them personally for damages.  The court said in part:

The record does not present sufficient evidence to establish that the Individual Defendants knew or should have known their straightforward application of the seemingly legal zoning regulations, which impose different setback requirements on places of worship and places of business, would violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. And Plaintiff provides no legal authority clearly establishing that a government official violates a citizen’s right to freedom of religion when it enforces an apparently valid zoning ordinance for facially neutral reasons that may or may not interfere with the citizen’s right to express her religion. 

Moreover, Plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence to establish that each of the of the Individual Defendants, in voting to deny Plaintiff’s variance application, acted with discriminatory intent or religious annimus...

However, in finding that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court cautions that its decision here should in no way be construed as a finding that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were not violated by the ZBA’s decision, or as absolving the ZBA , the City, or any of the Entity Defendants from potential liability.

Oregon State Law Overrides County Limit On Zoning For Mosque

 In Tarr v. Multnomah County, (OR App., Aug. 19, 2020), an Oregon state appellate court held that a state statute governing zoning for houses of worship prevents a county from applying a "compatibility standard" that appears in the county zoning code.  In a suit by individuals living next door to property on which it is proposed to build a mosque, the court concluded that the county code's requirement that a community service use be "consistent  with  the  character  of  the  area" cannot be invoked to prevent construction of the mosque.  The court said in part:

the  plain  terms  of  ORS  215.441(1)  and  (2),  in context, leave no room for the application of the county’s compatibility  standard—or  standards  like  it—to  proposed  religious  land  uses  where,  as  here,  a  place  of  worship  is  allowed  on  a  particular  piece  of  real  property  under  state  law  and  county  zoning  laws.

Michigan Mosque Sues Cemetery Over Need To Prepay For Grave Sites

In May, suit was filed in a state trial court in Dearborn, Michigan by a local mosque which claims that a cemetery is attempting in breach of contract to double the price of grave space for mosque members during the COVID-19 emergency.  On July 2, the mosque filed a motion (full text) for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. The allegations in American Moslem Society v. Midwest Memorial Group, LLC, (MI Cir. Ct., filed 7/2/2020), are that the mosque entered three separate contracts over the years for the purchase of a large number of graves at a discount price, and then made the graves available to its members when needed by them. The mosque has paid $380,000 for 608 of the 1000 graves acquired under its latest contract. The cemetery now contends that the mosque must pay in advance for all 1000 graves before it may use any of them. Plaintiffs' motion for Summary Disposition alleges in part:

Defendant's unjustified refusal to allow burials in AMS III at a time of great suffering and need in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly part of a grossly improper attempt to shake down Plaintiff and its members.  Defendant's April 14 letter cynically proposes a simple "cure" for the problem.  Plaintiff either 1)  pays the amount of $353,750 remaining ..., or 2) waives its rights under the 2017 Contract and enters into a new contract in which the cost of graves ... is roughly doubled.

... Defendant's demands are particularly coercive in light of its knowledge that the AMS community is extraordinarily tight knit and places a high premium on having its loved ones buried in close proximity to each other and to their mosque, which is located adjacent to the cemetery.

Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit: Mosque Is Not In Interstate Commerce Under Federal Arson Statute

In United States v. Doggert, (6th Cir., Jan. 15, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed defendant's conviction for solicitation to commit federal arson of a local mosque. The federal arson statute (18 USC §844(i)) covers only property used in interstate of foreign commerce or in an activity affecting such commerce. The court said in part:

By any conventional measure, these terms do not cover the attempted destruction of a local mosque or for that matter any house of worship. In everyday English, one does not think of a mosque that serves a 200-person local community as a building used in commerce, much less interstate commerce. There may be plenty of good reasons to prosecute Robert Doggart for his deranged plan. But the words of this statute are not one of them.

However the court upheld Doggart's conviction under 18 USC §373 for solicitation to commit a crime of violence, namely destroying religious property in violation of 18 USC 247. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Court Upholds Removal of Mosque's Finance Director

In Islamic Center of Passaic, Inc. v. Salahuddin, (NJ App.,Jan. 13, 2020), a New Jersey appellate court upheld the removal of defendant as finance director and member of the governing Shura Board of a New Jersey Islamic Center. Defendant was the wife of the founder and long-time spiritual leader of the Center. She clashed with the Center's new imam, refusing to allow him or the Shura Board to oversee her financial transactions on behalf of the organization.  The court said in part:

Here, the parties' claims arise from Islamic Center's constitution and bylaws and do not involve religious doctrine or practices. The trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law concern whether Islamic Center complied with the procedures set forth in its organizational documents. Judge LaConte applied neutral principles of law to determine if Salahuddin was lawfully removed from office. Resolution of the parties' purely secular claims did not trespass on their religious freedoms.

With respect to Salahuddin's substantive claims, our scope of review of the judge's findings in this nonjury case is limited. We must defer to the judge's factual determinations, so long as they are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record....

[W]e are convinced there is substantial, credible evidence supporting Judge LaConte's findings of fact. We also agree with his legal conclusion Islamic Center complied with its constitution and bylaws when removing Salahuddin as finance director and Shura Board member.

Supreme Court Review Sought In City Council Speech Limits At Meeting On Mosque

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed on Dec. 9 with the U.S. Supreme Court in Youkhanna v. City of Sterling Heights. In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to the manner in which the city of Sterling Heights, Michigan conducted a raucous city council meeting at which settlement of a RLUIPA lawsuit was being considered.  At issue was the city's settlement of a zoning dispute with backers of a mosque.  City Council placed limits on the scope of comments that citizens could make during the meeting, and eventually cleared the meeting room when the audience became disruptive. (See prior posting.)

Justice Department Sues Michigan City Over Mosque Zoning

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the city of Troy, Michigan alleging that it has violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in denying zoning approval for a mosque to be built by Adam Community Center.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. City of Troy, Michigan, (ED MI, filed 9/19/2019), contends in part:

Troy specifically violated RLUIPA by: (a) imposing an unjustified substantial burden on Adam’s exercise of religion when it denied Adam’s variance requests, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1); and (b) requiring places of worship to abide by more onerous setback and parking restrictions than nonreligious places of assembly, id. § 2000cc(b)(1).

Detroit Free Press reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit: City Did Not Ban All Mention of Religion At Council Meeting On Mosque Construction

In Youkhanna v. City of Sterling Heights, (6th Cir., Aug. 14, 2019), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to the manner in which the city of Sterling Heights, Michigan conducted a raucous city council meeting at which settlement of a RLUIPA lawsuit was being considered.  At issue was the city's settlement of a zoning dispute under which the American Islamic Community Center was permitted to build a mosque in the city.  City Council placed limits on the scope of comments that citizens could make during the meeting, and eventually cleared the meeting room when the audience became disruptive.

Plaintiffs objected that their 1st Amendment rights were infringed when the mayor told the audience at the meeting:

We do not need any comments about anybody’s religion, that is not the purpose of this meeting tonight and any comments regarding other religions or disagreements with religions will be called out of order.

The court responded:

This was not, as plaintiffs would have, a ban on talking about religion. This is clear from the fact that comments mentioning religion—including comments mentioning Islam specifically—were allowed when they were relevant to zoning issues....

The court also rejected a number of other challenges to the conduct of the meeting, including an Establishment Clause claim.  Detroit News reports that plaintiffs intend to seek en banc review of he decision.

Court Says RLUIPA Claims By Mosque May Proceed

In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, April 3, 2019), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA substantial burden, discrimination and unequal treatment claims brought against the city of Troy, Michigan and various of its zoning officials.  At issue was the city's denial of a zoning variance for setback requirements that would have allowed Adam Community Center to use an existing commercial building as a mosque. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently states a substantial burden claim. Plaintiff alleges that it cannot conduct prayer services in its current facility, that there are no Muslim places of worship within the City for Plaintiff and its community members to practice their religion, that there are no other properties available in the City that satisfy the City’s zoning requirements for places of worship, and that not having a place of worship within the City poses a substantial burden on its ability to engage in religious exercise. Plaintiff also alleges facts, which if true, would support its theory that the City acted with discriminatory intent and treated Plaintiff differently from other faith based organizations. Plaintiff specifically alleges that the zoning laws have not been applied neutrally to it and that commercial businesses and Christian churches are treated more favorably.

Detroit News reports on the decision.

Mosque Survives Motion To Dismiss Its RLUIPA and Constitutional Claims

In Garden State Islamic Center v. City of Vineland, (D NJ, Dec. 12, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court refused to dismiss a mosque's challenge to the denial of a final certificate of occupancy. The denial stems from the city's claim that the mosque is in violation of its septic system permit.  As summarized by the court:

GSIC claims that the Defendants’ actions are discriminatory in nature and are intended to prevent the GSIC from permanently opening and operating its house of worship/ religious education building through the discriminatory application of land use regulations, in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ... and the Constitutions of the United States and New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that the City continually changed the requirements for the septic system, which they previously approved, for discriminatory purposes.

The septic tank issue was merely the latest in a series of procedural hurdles encountered by the mosque. The court concluded that "the sewage permit issue is a zoning law subject to RLUIPA." The court also refused to dismiss plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment claims and related New Jersey constitutional claims.

Suit Challenges Denial of Zoning Approval For Mosque

A suit was filed in a Michigan federal district court yesterday against the city of Troy, Michigan challenging the denial of a zoning variance for property acquired for use as a mosque and community center.  The complaint (full text) in Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, filed 11/9/2018), alleges RLUIPA and constitutional violations, saying in part:

31. The City of Troy currently has seventy-three (73) approved places of worship for various religions including Christian Churches and Hindu Temples. However, the city of Troy does not have a single approved Muslim Mosque or other Muslim religious institution within the city.

32. The city of Troy, through its Zoning Board of Appeals as well as planning commission employees, has on several occasions since 2013 recommended that Adam look to other cities as a better place to build their mosque and has stated that there are no places left in Troy where a mosque would be possible. This is despite the fact that there have been new Christian churches built and approved in the city of Troy between 2013 and 2018.

CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.