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.

2nd Circuit: Rabbinical College Prevails In Part of Its Zoning Law Challenge

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, (2d Cir., Dec. 29, 2019), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 104-page opinion affirmed in part the judgment in favor of those supporting construction of a rabbinical school ("TRC") in a New York village.  The court found that plaintiffs had standing to bring their equal protection claim. It summarized its holding:

TRC and future students and faculty (collectively, “Tartikov”) filed this action against the Village and its board of trustees seeking to declare unconstitutional the two amendments enacted after its plans became known. In addition, it challenged two other amendments that had been passed earlier. After a bench trial, the district court found that all four zoning law amendments were tainted by religious animus, enjoined their enforcement, and entered a broad injunction sweeping away or modifying for these plaintiffs New York State and local laws that otherwise would apply. The Village challenges the decision below. Its central contention is that the findings of religious animus were clearly erroneous. Tartikov cross appeals from a number of pretrialrulings that limited the scope of its claims.

After careful consideration of the extensive record, we decline to overturn the district court’s findings that religious animus motivated the two zoning amendments passed after the plaintiffs’ wishes became known and thus affirm the injunction barring their enforcement. But we respectfully conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support such a finding as to either of the two earlier zoning amendments and therefore reverse that portion of the judgment. We conclude also that the injunctive relief went further than was appropriate and modify those aspects of the judgment as well. We affirm as to the cross-appeal.

Rabbinical College Wins Challenge To Zoning and Environmental Laws

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY, (SD NY, Dec. 7, 2017), a New York federal district court in a 112-page opinion held that various zoning and environmental regulations enacted by the Village of Pomona violate the rights of plaintiff which is seeking to build a rabbinical college, on-campus housing and related religious facilities on a 100-acre piece of land which it owns.  The court held that plaintiff had proven that the challenged laws were enacted with a discriminatory purpose to "thwart the expansion of the orthodox/ Hasidic community.  The challenged laws were found to violate the Equal Protection Clause, the state and federal Free Exercise Clauses, RLUIPA's non-discrimination provisions, and the Fair Housing Act.  the court also concluded that the challenged laws imposed a substantial burden on plaintiff's religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA.  Lohud reports on the decision.

Most of Rabbinical College's Challenges To Land Use Restrictions Are To Proceed To Trial

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, (SD NY, Sept. 29, 2015), a New York federal district court ruled on various motions in challenges to the land use ordinances of the Village of Pomona, New York that allegedly were adopted to prevent plaintiffs from constructing a planned rabbinical college. (See prior related posting.)  In a 145-page opinion, the court imposed limited sanctions on defendants for their destruction of a relevant Facebook posting:

Because Defendants concealed—and failed to disclose—the relevant Facebook post and potentially a portion of the accompanying text messages, the jury will be instructed that it may infer that the contents of the Facebook Post indicated discriminatory animus towards the Hasidic Jewish population. Defendants also will be precluded from offering evidence to rebut that specific inference, though they can still present evidence to indicate that the Challenged Laws were not adopted for discriminatory reasons.

The court went on to allow plaintiffs to proceed on their equal protection, free exercise, freedom of association, RLUIPA, Fair Housing Act and various state law challenges, denying motions by both parties for summary judgment.  However the court dismissed plaintiffs' free speech challenge, holding that "the fact that building a rabbinical college might enable religious speech does not render its construction speech itself."

Rabbinical College Can Proceed With Facial Challenge To Land Use Ordinances

In a 102-page opinion, a New York federal district court in Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, (SD NY, Jan. 4, 2013), dismissed on ripeness grounds a number of "as applied" challenges to the land use ordinances of the Village of Pomona, New York. However the court permitted plaintiffs to proceed with facial challenges to the ordinances under the 1st and 14th Amendments, RLUIPA, the Fair Housing Act and the New York constitution. Plaintiffs alleged that the village adopted the land use ordinances with the deliberate purpose of preventing it from constructing a planned rabbinical college. Plaintiffs never filed a formal application for permission to build the college.  They were merely rebuffed by the village's attorney and in an informal exchange of letters the mayor said the village would not exempt the project from the village's zoning laws.

Two Cases Decide On Tax Exempt Status of Property Owned By Religious Groups

Two recent unrelated cases involve disputes over whether certain property is used for religious purposes so that it is exempt from property taxes.  In First Korean Church of New York, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals, (PA Commonwealth Ct., June 14, 2011), a Pennsylvania appellate court upheld the denial of tax exempt status for property of a former seminary that was acquired at a sheriff's sale by a church, but which appeared to be largely unused and in disrepair.

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Town of Ramapo, (NY Ct. App., June 14, 2011), New York's highest court held that Ramapo tax authorities improperly revoked the tax exemption for property that was being used for a religious summer camp. While a contractor was operating the camp on behalf of the rabbinical college that owned the land, the rabbinical college "retained general supervision and control over the camp's operation, including the right to approve the hiring of camp personnel, the purveyors of kosher food for camp lunches, and the religious curriculum." (See prior related posting.)

Church Property Tax Disputes Continue In Various Locations

Disputes over tax exemptions for property owned by religious institutions continue to arise around the country. In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Town of Ramapo, (NY App. Div., April 20, 2010), a New York appellate court held that town tax authorities improperly revoked the tax exemption for property that was being leased out as a religious summer camp by the rabbinical college that owned it. The court held that the operation of the summer camp was in furtherance of the college's religious purposes. (See prior related posting.)
[Thanks to Joseph Landau for the lead.]

Meanwhile in Scituate, Massachusetts, the Boston Archdiocese has withdrawn a lawsuit seeking a court declaration that the town cannot tax the St. Francis X. Cabrini church building that had been closed by the archdiocese, so long as it was not used for non-religious purposes. The archdiocese argued that the building remains a sacred place designated for divine worship. (See prior posting.) The Quincy (MA) Patriot Ledger reports that the Archdiocese has decided to pursue appeals through the state Appellate Tax Board instead of in court.

Court Denies Tax Exemption For Property Leased To Summer Camp

A New York trial court has denied an exemption for 2006-08 property taxes for 130 acres of land in Pomona, New York owned by Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, according to a report last week by the Lower Hudson Journal News. The court ruled that the Rabbinical College's profit from leasing the land to a summer camp makes the undeveloped property unconnected to the Rabbinical College's other activities. The Village of Pomona has already granted an exemption for 2009 taxes, but will consider revoking it for future years. A discrimination suit against Pomona is pending in federal court over the Villae of Pomona's refusal to permit the Rabbinical College to build facilities on 30 acres of its land. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: The text of the court's decision in Congregation Rabbinical Coll. of Tartikov, Inc. v Town of Ramapo, (NY Sup. Ct., April 15, 2009), is now available online.

NY Rabbinical College Sues For Permission to Build

The Brooklyn-based Congregational Rabbinical College of Tartikov has filed suit in federal district court in New York challenging Pomona, New York officials' refusal to permit the group to build a Rabbinical College on 30 acres of the Congregation's 100 acre property. The proposed college would include places of worship, educational facilities, religious courts, libraries and student housing. The complaint (full text) in Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY, alleges violations of RLUIPA and of the federal Fair Housing Act, as well as violations of various state and federal constitutional provisions. The complaint alleges that "The Village of Pomona has engaged in a targeted and deliberate decades long effort to prevent various Jewish individuals and institutions from developing the subject property and other nearby properties, while permitting other development within the Village." The Associated Press today reports on the lawsuit. (See prior related posting.)

RLUIPA Suit In Offing Over Proposed NY Rabbinical College

Yesterday’s New York Times reported on a religious land use dispute in the village of Pamona, New York. The Brooklyn-based Congregational Rabbinical College of Tartikov has purchased 100 acres of land in the village for $13 million in the Rockland County village. It plans to build a college to educate rabbis to become religious judges in civil disputes among Orthodox Jews. Organizers say 1,000 rabbis would be housed here along with their families in buildings as tall as 6-stories. Each rabbi would study for 15 years. The formal proposal which is expected next month, will call for as many as ten buildings with up to 4,500 residents and parking for 1,000 cars. The current population of Pamona is only 3,200. Already there are problems with adequate sewers and drinking water. City officials expect a RLUIPA lawsuit to be filed in order for the group to get the zoning approvals it needs. Also, the history of bloc voting by growing Orthodox Jewish communities has increased their influence in local politics.