Suit Challenging Anti-Zionist Proposed Curriculum Is Dismissed

In Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles v. Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, (CD CA, Nov. 30, 2024), a California federal district court dismissed both for jurisdictional reasons and on the merits a suit by plaintiffs who were Jewish Zionists against a group that developed a set of teaching materials that the group hoped Los Angeles Public Schools would adopt. The court said in part:

According to plaintiffs, the challenged curriculum "denounces capitalism, the nuclear family, and the territorial integrity of the lower 48 states of the United States[,]"... and is designed "to expunge the idea of Zionism, and the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel, from the public square[.]"... Plaintiffs allege there is "rank discrimination embedded in the LESMC," ... because the challenged curriculum, among other things, "includes statements that the existence of the State of Israel is based on ethnic cleansing and land theft, apartheid and genocide" and that "Zionism is distinct from Judaism."... Because the challenged curriculum contains anti-Zionist material, plaintiffs allege that the curriculum is antisemitic.,,,

The court held that plaintiffs' claims were not ripe for judicial review and that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims. It went on to also reject plaintiffs' equal protection and free exercise challenges on additional grounds. It held first that the defendants other than the school district were not state actors for purposes of the 14th Amendment. It went on to hold:

... [I]t is clear that the [complaint] is a direct "attack on curricula" — and "absent evidence of unlawful intentional discrimination, parents are not entitled to bring Equal Protection claims challenging curriculum content."... In short, plaintiffs' equal protection claims under both the California and United States constitutions must be dismissed....

In effect, the only hardship plaintiffs allege is that the existence of the challenged curriculum — and its possible adoption — offends them. But mere offense is insufficient to allege a burden on religious exercise....

In short, plaintiffs' claim that the challenged curriculum violates the Free Exercise Clause because it is intended "to suppress public expression of, and public support for, Zionist beliefs and to prevent Zionists from acting on their sincerely held religious belief[,]" ... must be dismissed, as plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a substantial burden on their religious exercise or practice.

The court also rejected claims under Title VI and the California Education Code. It then concluded:

... [I]t must also be noted that significant First Amendment concerns underlie plaintiffs' claims and requested relief.... In effect, plaintiffs seek to litigate the propriety and legality of a potential curriculum with which they disagree. Their claims thus conflict with the First Amendment in several respects, and are largely barred on that basis as well.

Various state law claims were also stricken under California's anti=SLAPP statute.

Noticias Newswire reports on the decision.

Food Ministry Can Move Ahead with RLUIPA and Free Exercise Claims Against City

In Gethsemani Baptist Church v. City of San Luis, (D AZ, Nov. 22, 2024), an Arizona federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA, 1st Amendment and state law claims brought against the city by a church that operates a Food Ministry. When the city adopted its current zoning code in 2012, it considered the Ministry a permitted pre-existing non-conforming use. In 2023, however, the city alleged that the nature of the Ministry's activities had changed so that it could no longer be considered a legal pre-existing non-conforming use in a residential zone. The Church sued claiming enforcement placed a substantial burden on its exercise of religion. The city argued in part that the Church needed to apply for a conditional use permit and could sue only if and when that was denied.  The court rejected the city's motion to dismiss for lack of ripeness. It also concluded that the Church had adequately stated a claim that RLUIPA applies because the city made an individualized assessment of the use of the property. The court refused to dismiss the Church's 1st Amendment claim, finding that it had pled sufficient facts to establish a plausible entitlement to relief. Finally, it refused to dismiss plaintiff's claims brought under the Arizona Free Exercise of Religion Act.

Denial of Church's Property Tax Exemption Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Sandstrom v. Wendell, (WD NY, March 22, 2024), a New York federal district court rejected RLUIPA challenges to local tax officials' denial of a tax exemptions for two properties owned and converted to religious use by the Church of the Holy Redemption. Plaintiff, pastor of the church, argued that his religious exercise was substantially burdened by the denial. Tax officials contended that the Church did not qualify for a tax exemption. The court held in part:

[D]espite Plaintiff’s attempts to recharacterize his claims as amounting to a zoning challenge, ... Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged any burden on his religious beliefs apart from having to apply for tax-exempt status or being required to pay taxes.  At its core, Plaintiff is seeking a federal court ruling on a local tax matter, which is specifically circumscribed by the Tax Injunction Act and principles of comity....

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that he submitted a meaningful application to challenge the controversy or gave Defendants an opportunity to commit to a position intended to be “final.”  Plaintiff does not allege that he completed the necessary requirements to challenge the properties’ status, commenced any appeal of the determination, or that such efforts would be futile, weighing against a finding that the claims are ripe....

2nd Circuit: Jewish School Prevented From Purchasing Site Meets Standing and Ripeness Requirements To Sue

In Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v. Town of Clarkston, (2d Cir., Dec. 8, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that an Orthodox Jewish school that was prevented by town officials and a citizens' group from purchasing property on which to build met the standing and ripeness requirements to bring suit under RLUIPA, civil rights laws and state tort law. The court said in part:

ABY argues on appeal that its claims were ripe because nothing more than de facto finality is required for us to review them, and that such finality attached when the Zoning Board informed ABY that it would not entertain its appeal. ABY also argues that the district court erred in holding that ABY failed to satisfy the traceability requirement of Article III standing as to its tortious interference claim because it adequately pleaded that the Town Defendants’ conduct caused its contractual injuries. We agree with ABY and, therefore, we REVERSE the judgement of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

6th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in RLUIPA Land Use Dispute

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday (July 19) heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in a RLUIPA land use case, Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. v Genoa Charter Township, Michigan. The dispute is summarized by a Michigan federal district court in one of its opinions:

CHI acquired title to a parcel of undeveloped property... and requested Township approval to construct a grotto/prayer area with associated parking and drive access on the Property.... In response, the Township informed a CHI representative that the proposed construction would be considered a special land use requiring special land use and site plan approval.... Despite this instruction from the Township, CHI erected the desired religiously symbolic structures: a Station of the Cross, similar in size and appearance to a birdhouse, and a shrine consisting of an image within a brick wall, referred to as a “grotto,” on the Property without approval or permits from the Township....

The complex history of the case is outlined on the website of the American Freedom Law Center. Yesterday's oral arguments, which focused in part on the issue of ripeness, are discussed by Courthouse News Service.

Court Tells Catholic Bookstore to Litigate Over Religious Organization Exception to Nondiscrimination Law

In The Catholic Bookstore, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, (MD FL, June 9, 2023), a Florida federal district court found that a Catholic bookstore has standing to challenge Jacksonville's Human Rights Ordinance on free speech grounds.  It also concluded that the claim is ripe. The bookstore wants to publicize its policy requiring its staff to address co-workers and customers only by "pronouns and titles that align with the biologically originating sex of the person being referenced...." The city's Ordinance provides in part that it is unlawful to publish, circulate or display any communication indicating that service will be denied, or that patronage is unwelcome from a person because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The court, however, concluded that it is unclear whether the Human Rights Ordinance's religious organization exception applies to the bookstore.  The court went on to deny plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint followed by a motion for summary judgment limited to the religious exception issue so it can resolve that issue before dealing with the rest of the case.

Religious Objections To Air Force COVID Mandate Dismissed For Lack of Standing and Ripeness

In Miller v. Austin, (D WY, Aug. 22, 2022), a Wyoming federal district court dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds a suit by two Air Force sergeants who face discharge because of their refusal on religious grounds to receive the COVID vaccine.  The court said in part:

Defendants correctly point out "Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to avoid the possibility of involuntary separation."... Furthermore, due to the pending class action, Defendants confirmed Miller's August 25, 2022 separation hearing has been paused.... There is no current threat of separation. Plaintiffs have not yet suffered a concrete, particularized, actual injury in fact because Plaintiffs have not been separated from the USAF. Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this issue.

More damning to Plaintiffs' case, however, is the fact that the religious exemption is still subject to administrative review within the USAF.

2nd Circuit: Rabbinical College's Zoning Challenge Is Not Ripe For Review

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, New York, (2d Cir., May 27, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging two Village zoning laws that prevent plaintiffs from building a rabbinical college on its 100-acre property.  The court held that the challenge to the laws fails on ripeness grounds. It concluded that the Village Board of Trustees' refusal to consider plaintiffs' petition to repeal completely the two laws cannot be considered to be the Board's final decision on the particular building plans, since the petition did not set out any details of the plans. It also concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco did not change the ripeness rules for challenging a zoning denial. (See prior related posting.) Rockland/Westchester Journal News reports on the 2nd Circuit's decision.