RLUIPA Success Unlikely on Challenge to Denial of Special Use Permit for Jewish Retreat Center

In Fresh Start Center v. Township of Grosse Ile, (ED MI, Sept. 5, 2024), a Michigan federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction in a RLUIPA lawsuit challenging the denial of a variance and a special land use permit to the Fresh Start Center to operate a religious retreat center in an area zoned residential. The Center holds retreats twice a month for Orthodox Jews who have experienced a loss of faith because of trauma. Each retreat involves 4 to 5 participants from all over the world and up to 4 other staff. The court said in part:

Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of establishing a substantial burden on the Center’s religious exercise, the Court need not determine whether that substantial burden was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest....  Here, the Center has not shown there are no feasible alternate locations within the Township and outside the Township where the Center can conduct its retreats.  The only burden the Center has demonstrated is disappointment that it cannot conduct its retreats at the Property.  The present record reveals that being unable to conduct its retreats at a desired location does not rise to the level of a substantial burden.  While the Center may ultimately succeed on the merits once the record is more fully developed, at this juncture it has not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its substantial burden RLUIPA claim....

The court also concluded that plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on a claim that the denial violated the equal terms provision of RLUIPA.

Requiring Conditional Use Permit Is Not Substantial Burden Under RLUIPA

In Athey Creek Christian Fellowship v. Clackamas County, (D OR, July 30, 2024), an Oregon federal district court dismissed a RLUIPA challenge to the denial of a Conditional Use Permit for construction of the second phase of a church building. The court said in part: 

... [P]laintiff filed this suit in November of 2022, alleging that the zoning ordinance that required churches to apply for a conditional use permit and did not allow churches as a primary use is facially invalid under the RLUIPA, and that the County violated plaintiff’s rights under the RLUIPA, the First Amendment, and the Oregon Constitution by not allowing plaintiff to build phase 2 of the project and forcing plaintiff to re-apply for a new or modified conditional use permit. 

The purported burden here then includes the County’s conclusion that the 2006 CUP has expired, and the County’s resulting insistence that plaintiff must now apply to build phase 2 under the new “primary use” .... Neither one of these carries the traditional hallmarks of a substantial burden under the RLUIPA....

Notably, the record in case is missing a common, even pervasive, attribute in those cases where the plaintiffs succeeded on a substantial burden claim, namely that the relevant zoning authority displayed some outward hostility toward or pretextual decision-making about the plaintiffs’ proposed religious use....

... [P]laintiff has not shown why seeking an extension of the 2006 CUP or timely obtaining the relevant building permits for phase 2 were a substantial burden to its religious exercise....

The same reasoning applies to the alleged burden that resulted from the County’s insistence now that plaintiff must now re-apply as a primary use. It is not a substantial burden to file an application for a proposed land use.

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.

2nd Circuit: Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Challenge Zoning Law That Accommodates Jewish Worship Sites

In Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, (2d Cir., April 5, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that neither the organizational nor the individual plaintiffs had standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to the Village's 2019 zoning law applicable to places of worship.  According to the court:

... [A]t the urging of the Orthodox Jewish Coalition of Chestnut Ridge ..., the Village began the process of amending its zoning laws so that places of worship could more easily be built in Village neighborhoods, accommodating the need of Orthodox Jewish observers “to pray within walking distance of their homes.”...

In sum, even if it could be argued that the challenged law improperly promotes religion, Plaintiffs point to no cognizable harm that is actual or imminent.  They claim that the Village spent tax money in passing the law yet fail to allege how those funds were anything more than a routine use of the Village’s planning budget....  They claim that they will be directly exposed to newly authorized religious structures without asserting that they have even seen one of those structures or when and where they might ever do so in the future.  And while they contend that the law denies them the same opportunity as religious groups to host large gatherings, they do not assert that they have any particular interest in holding such events....  Ultimately, even if Plaintiffs have a sincere objection to the challenged law, our Article III standing doctrine requires them to first establish a real stake in their challenge before bringing it in federal court.

RLUIPA Safe harbor Does Not Extend to Claims for Monetary Damages

 In Bair Brucha Inc. v. Township of Toms River, New Jersey, (D NJ, Feb. 29, 2024), a New Jersey federal district court granted plaintiffs judgment on the pleadings on their RLUIPA and Free Exercise challenges to discriminatory land use regulations that prevented their construction of a synagogue.  Plaintiffs claimed that Toms River had engaged in an orchestrated effort to prevent the growth of the Orthodox Jewish population in the town. Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, the township amended its zoning regulations in a settlement of a RLUIPA suit brought by the Justice Department. Plaintiffs did not deny that their original regulations violated the Equal Terms and the Exclusion and Limits provisions of RLUIPA. However, they contended that since the zoning ordinances have subsequently been amended, the township is covered by the safe harbor provision in RLUIPA that shields a local government from the preemptive force of RLUIPA if it subsequently amends its land use regulations to remove the burdensome or discriminatory provisions. The court held that the safe harbor provision does not extend to claims for monetary damages incurred before the township took corrective action.

Also finding a violation of the Free Exercise clause, the court concluded that the land use regulations were neither neutral nor generally applicable and that antisemitic animus was a motivating factor behind the land use regulations.

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.

Denial of Permission to Build Grotto Did Not Violate RLUIPA

 In Frederic v. City of Park Hills Board of Adjustment, (KY App., Dec. 1, 2023), a Kentucky state appeals court held that a denying a church permission to build a grotto on its property does not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.   The court said in part:

The application of the ordinance to prohibit construction of the grotto may make practice of religion somewhat more difficult for the church’s congregation or the adherents of the Catholic faith broadly, but the Zoning Ordinance is not inherently inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Accordingly, we find the Park Hills Zoning Ordinance imposes no substantial burden on the religious exercise of any Appellee and, therefore, the ordinance does not constitute a violation of RLUIPA.

Consent Decree Entered In RLUIPA Suit Charging Discrimination Against Orthodox Jews

Last week, a New York federal district court entered a consent decree (full text) in United States v. Village of Airmont, (SD NY, Oct. 19, 2023). The decree settles a RLUIPA suit brought by the Justice Department charging the Village with religious discrimination. The consent decree supersedes a preliminary injunction issued by consent in 2021. (See prior posting.) According to the Justice Department's press release describing last week's consent decree:

The lawsuit alleged that Airmont had revised its zoning code in 2018 to discriminate against Orthodox Jewish residents and make it more difficult for them to worship in their own homes. The consent decree increases the amount of space in private homes that can be used for worship, removes restrictions that limited who residents are allowed to invite into their own homes to pray and eliminates the use of an arbitrary, drawn-out application process designed to delay and effectively deny permits for even minor alterations to private houses. Since 1991, this is the third lawsuit brought by the United States against Airmont for discriminating against the Orthodox Jewish community.

11th Circuit: Buddhist Organization Prevails Under Alabama State Constitution in Zoning Fight

In Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama,(11th Cir., Oct. 2, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals partly reversed the summary judgments entered in favor of the city of Mobile at the district court level.  At issue is Mobile's denial zoning approval for a Buddhist organization to use a house in a residential district for religious purposes. The appeals court held that neither party is entitled to summary judgment under RLUIPA because of factual disputes.  It held that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's Free Exercise claim because the zoning designation process is neutral and generally applicable. It held however, that the Buddhist organization is entitled to an injunction under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment to the state constitution, saying in part:

To begin, we have never held that neighborhood character or zoning are compelling government interests sufficient to justify abridging core constitutional rights....  ... [A]mici also note that generalized, high-level invocations of “zoning” are often used to target minority faith’s land use applications.... These concerns underscore why it is necessary to hold government entities to their burden to state and support a well-defined government interest. 

Here, the City has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate a compelling government interest. The generalized invocations of neighborhood character and zoning fail as a matter of law under our precedents. The City’s invocation of traffic concerns fare slightly better..., but they are unsubstantiated in the record....

6th Circuit Says Zoning Restrictions on Prayer Trail Violate RLUIPA

In Catholic Healthcare International, Inc. v. Genoa Charter Township, (6th Cir., Sept. 11, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a Michigan federal district court to promptly enter a preliminary injunction that will allow a Catholic healthcare organization to restore a Stations of the Cross prayer trail along with a stone altar and mural. Genoa Township zoning officials had insisted that the Prayer Trail should be treated as a church for zoning purposes. Plaintiffs sued contending that the zoning ordinance as applied to them violates RLUIPA. The court said in part:

The question here is whether the Township’s decision to treat the prayer trail as the equivalent of a church building—thereby requiring plaintiffs to apply for a special land-use permit—imposed a substantial burden on their “religious exercise[.]”...

The only factor that the Township mentions, in arguing that plaintiffs have not borne a substantial burden, is whether “a plaintiff has imposed a burden upon itself[.]” Id. This factor reflects that, when a plaintiff has good reason to know in advance that its proposed usage will be subject to an onerous review process, the burdens of that process are not likely to count as substantial for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). But here the Township’s zoning ordinance gave plaintiffs little reason to expect the treatment they have received....

... [P]laintiffs had reason to think that their prayer trail would be treated in the same manner as “[p]rivate non-commercial parks, nature preserves and recreational areas”—none of which require a special land-use permit in the type of zoning district ... in which plaintiffs’ parcel is located....

The court also held that a Township ban on organized gatherings on plaintiffs' property would likely substantially burden their religious exercise.

Judge Clay filed a concurring opinion expanding on the legal standards governing claims under RLUIPA.  CBS News reports on the decision.

New Jersey Settles With Township Accused of Discriminating Against Orthodox Jewish Residents

 A Consent Order (full text) was entered yesterday by a New Jersey trial court in Platkin v. Jackson Township, (NJ Super., Aug. 28, 2023).  In the suit, the state alleged that the Township had violated the Law Against Discrimination by taking zoning and enforcement actions against the growing Orthodox Jewish population in the Township. (See prior posting.) Under the Order, the Township must pay $275,000 in penalties and place another $150,000 in a Restitution Fund. It must end its discriminatory use of land use and zoning regulations and create a Multicultural Committee. It must create procedures for erecting Sukkahs and eruvim, and must comply with a previously issued order in federal enforcement case to zone to allow religious schools, including schools with dormitories, in various parts of the Township. The New Jersey Attorney General issued a press release with further information on the settlement agreement.

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.

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.

Miami Beach Settles Synagogue's Zoning Harassment Lawsuit for $1.3M

Miami Herald reports that a dispute between the Orthodox Jewish Congregation Bais Yeshaya D’Kerestir and Miami Beach, Florida zoning officials that was scheduled to go to trial in federal court yesterday has been settled, with the city agreeing to pay the Congregation $1.3 million on its 1st Amendment Code enforcement harassment lawsuit. (The city has already spent $1.7 million in legal fees on the case.) The city claimed that the 4-bedroom property at issue was operating as a synagogue in an area zoned residential. According to the Miami Herald:

People pray at the home daily, including for a minyan that requires at least 10 Jewish men to be present, according to the congregation. The congregation and its rabbi, Arie Wohl, argued that those prayer sessions — which sometimes include dozens of people, according to the city — are invitation-only and therefore constitute “private prayer.” 

“Just as any homeowner may invite friends for a Cub Scout meeting or a book club, Plaintiff and the full-time resident invite friends and family to join them for private prayer in their home,” the federal lawsuit says.

But the city says activity at the home went beyond private prayer. Code enforcement officers, using body-worn cameras, said they found evidence the house was operating as a synagogue, including an industrial-size coffee urn, a community bulletin board and benches for up to 30 people.

As part of the settlement agreement, the Congregation has agreed not to seek a religious tax exemption for the property in the future, and to restrict parking and use of outdoor speakers. The settlement also covered a related state court lawsuit.

Chabad's Long-Running Suit Over Land Use Dismissed In Part

In Lubavitch of Old Westbury, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, New York, (ED NY, Jan. 31, 2023), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss on various procedural and jurisdictional grounds (including statute of limitations) a number of the claims in a long-running suit by an Orthodox Jewish Chabad organization that has been unable to obtain permission to use some seven acres of property for religious education, worship and related activities. The magistrate judge began his lengthy Report and Recommendation as follows:

Presently before the Court is a motion to partially dismiss this action, which has been pending for more than fourteen years and involves factual allegations going back to 1994. In the years since the initial complaint was filed on December 17, 2008, this case has been assigned (and then reassigned) to four District Judges ... and four Magistrate Judges.... Furthermore, numerous law firms and attorneys have come and gone on behalf of the parties over this lengthy time span. As a reminder to the parties, they have an affirmative obligation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 1 "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."...

A 237-page Second Amended Complaint in the case asserted 17 causes of action under the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, RLUIPA and the state Constitution.

4th Circuit: Church Loses Challenges to Zoning Restrictions

In Alive Church of the Nazarene, Inc. v. Prince William County, Virginia, (4th Cir., Jan. 31, 2023), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a church's challenges to zoning restrictions that prevented it from using property it purchased for religious services. The church purchased 17 acres of land zoned for agricultural use.  The church originally planned to comply with the agricultural use requirements by making non-alcoholic cider from fruit trees on the property. It would then be classified as a farm winery or limited-license brewery, could build any buildings it wished on the property and could hold events in them. However, the church discovered that in order to qualify, it also was required to obtain a license from the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. It concluded that doing this would violate its religious beliefs against the promotion of alcohol. Its only other route was to comply with provisions of a Special Use Permit which required construction that it could not afford. The court rejected the church's equal terms, non-discrimination and substantial burden challenges under RLUIPA, as well as its constitutional Equal Protection, Free Exercise and Peaceable Assembly challenges to the restrictions imposed on it. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

City's Harassment Of Private Prayer Services In Rabbi's Home Violated 1st Amendment

In Congregation 3401 Prairie Bais Yeshaya D'Kerestir, Inc. v. City of Miami, (SD FL, Oct. 6, 2022), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss claims that city officials' harassment of a rabbi's home that hosted daily minyans (prayer services) for invited guests violated the 1st Amendment.  Private groups worshiping in a person's home are permitted in residential areas under the city's zoning code. The court said in part:

Defendant, wielding the City Code "like a club" ... issued multiple erroneous citations against Plaintiff for zoning code violations...; sent City personnel to the Property a staggering 126 times...; installed a surveillance camera that monitors only the Property ...; conducted at least one warrantless search...; and otherwise singled Plaintiffs out for harassment.... These events have had "a chilling effect on Plaintiff[s'] First Amendment Rights."... . Defendant's conduct, at least as alleged, could certainly "chill a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her First Amendment rights."  [Quote updated.]

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.

RLUIPA Suit Charges City Attempt To Prevent Growth Of Orthodox Jewish Population

Suit was filed earlier this month in an Ohio federal district court by a University Heights, Ohio homeowner who was told by the city that he needed to obtain a special use permit in order to hold Jewish prayer services with ten friends in his home. The complaint (full text) in Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio, (ND OH, filed 9/8/2021), says in part:

3. Since Grand moved into his home in 2019, he experienced discrimination based on his religion. After Grand’s invitation for friends to join him in Orthodox Jewish prayer in January of 2021, the City, led by its mayor, waged a zealous campaign of capricious enforcement of its local ordinances specifically targeting Grand and several other Orthodox Jewish prayer groups. This campaign is directly responsive to a hostile segment of the mayor’s constituency that seeks to prevent the growth of the City’s Orthodox Jewish population by limiting the locations where Orthodox Jews can pray.

4. Additionally, the City has targeted Grand individually for intentional, arbitrary, and discriminatory application of its ordinances that have caused him substantial injuries.

5. This action challenges certain provisions of the [city ordnances under] ... the United States Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. (“RLUIPA”), the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio common law.

News5 Cleveland reports on the lawsuit. 

Synagogue's Suit Over Zoning Denial Is Dismissed

In Chabad of Prospect, Inc. v. Louisville Metro Board of  Zoning Adjustment,(WD KY, Aug. 23, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed a suit brought against zoning officials by a synagogue that was denied a conditional use permit to use a home purchased by it for religious services. When the property was put up for sale, zoning rules allowed its use for religious purposes.  However, before plaintiff purchased the property the city removed that provision and required a conditional use permit. Plaintiff was unaware of the change. The court held that plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claim alleging 1st Amendment violations was barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, it held that plaintiff failed to state a claim under RLUIPA, saying in part:

Chabad alleged only that it chose and purchased the property “specifically” to open a synagogue for the community given that there are “[v]ery few synagogues” in the area and having one in “Prospect is vital to its mission.”... It didn’t allege any delay, expense, and uncertainty due to the burden of the denial. And Chabad never alleged that alternatives are infeasible, nor any other facts that indicate a substantial burden.

The court also rejected a claim under RLUIPA's "equal terms" provision, saying in part:

Chabad hasn’t offered anything to rebut the prediction that a house of worship would be more likely to cause greater traffic problems than regular residential events, even if the religious services are currently smaller....

Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs' state law claims.