Proponents of religious freedom said they are not overly concerned a federal judge in Los Angeles struck down a law that has been increasingly used to protect churches from zoning restrictions.
In fact, the June 25 ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson in the case of Elsinore Christian Center versus City of Lake Elsinore, Calif., merely facilitates what many thought was inevitable: a higher court ruling on whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) is constitutional.
Elsinor Christian Center claimed its religious exercise rights were denied when the city refused to grant it a conditional use permit for a building in the downtown area. The church intended to purchase and use the building as a worship center, but zoning restrictions prohibited religious assemblies and worship there.
"It was expected that eventually a federal judge somewhere would challenge the constitutionality of RLUIPA because of the fact it is the most sweeping, revolutionary civil rights statute ever enacted in U.S. history directly impacting the rights of churches," said Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute in Citrus Heights, Calif. "So, it was understood that eventually the constitutionality would be challenged or addressed by all the circuits or eventually by the United States Supreme Court."
RLUIPA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Sept. 22, 2000,
|
"We anticipate this case will be eventually reversed before the Ninth Circuit (or) if not the Ninth Circuit then the (U.S.) Supreme Court." Brad Dacus, |
It replaced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1997. The high court voted 6-3 that the U.S. Congress overstepped its authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection under the law.
Appeal in the Works
Dacus, whose organization is one of the law firms representing Elsinore Christian Center, said attorneys would ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn Wilson's ruling.
"We anticipate this case will be eventually reversed before the Ninth Circuit (or) if not the Ninth Circuit then the (U.S.) Supreme Court."
Dacus said the Ninth Circuit panel already has ruled favorably on the law's constitutionality in regard to institutionalized people.
In December 2001, the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously upheld RLUIPA in a case where Muslim inmates at Solano state prison for men in Vacaville, Calif., sued for the right to wear 6-inch beards and attend a weekly religious service, called Jumu'ah.
Still, Dacus said, the circuit panel could rule against the law's constitutionality as it pertains to land-use restrictions and zoning laws.
"They are very unpredictable. They often are termed the ‘Wild Card Circuit' because they are so difficult to predict. No one knows whether they will uphold that decision," Dacus said. "We're very optimistic that they will reverse it, but because we're dealing with the Ninth Circuit, there's a good chance this case will have to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which would then impact virtually every church in the United States of America."
All Eyes on California
As vice president of communications for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Patrick Korten has carefully watched RLUIPA cases around the country. The Becket Fund is a
|
"Ordinarily, judges do it the other way around. If they challenge the constitutionality, they decide that question first before deciding whether or not the law was violated." Patrick Korten, |
Korten said the recent ruling was confusing in the way it was decided.
"The remarkable thing about this one is (Wilson) found that Lake Elsinore was in violation of RLUIPA and then went ahead and found that RLUIPA was unconstitutional," he said. "Ordinarily, judges do it the other way around. If they challenge the constitutionality, they decide that question first before deciding whether or not the law was violated."
Korten said the case might be heard in as little as four to six months, but said it may be longer before it appears on the Ninth Circuit docket.
In the meantime, he said, church leaders who feel their rights under the law have been violated should continue to file cases in their jurisdictions, because the ruling applies to the Elsinore case only.
"It can certainly be cited in support of some city's argument in other cases," he said. "But, there are a number of other courts that have upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA, including another one in the central district of California in the Cottonwood Christian case."
In that case, the City of Cypress, Calif., denied a conditional use permit that would have allowed Cottonwood Christian Center to build a new worship center on 18 acres it bought for $13 million.
The city later initiated eminent domain proceedings to take the land from the church and transfer it to a commercial company that would generate tax revenue for the city.
The church filed suit, alleging RLUIPA violations, and U.S. District Judge David O. Carter blocked the city from seizing the land.
The church and the city later worked out a land-swap deal that allowed the church to build in another location.
"So, you have different judges in virtually the same district who have come down differently on that," Korten said.
Far Reaching Impact
Because so much is at stake, the Elsinore case will likely draw a lot of attention. The U.S. Department of Justice weighed in on the Elsinore case prior to Judge Wilson's ruling, and likely will be involved in the appeals process.
"This is a very, very important case," Dacus said. "We at the Pacific Justice Institute recognize how important it is and we are pooling all of our resources, as well as the legal resources of similar organizations into this equation to make sure that the absolute best defense possible is provided to this church. Not just for this church, but virtually every church in America."
He said his organization is representing or assisting 36 churches in cases involving RLUIPA.
The Elsinore case is just one of hundreds filed by churches since RLUIPA became law.
Many, like that of Freedom Baptist Church in Middletown, Penn., were so small they barely showed up on the radar screen of media coverage.
Size Doesn't Matter
Freedom Baptist used the law successfully when the city zoning board tried to
|
"Zoning boards are pretty powerful. They can zone churches out, which was pretty much what was done The Rev. Chris Keay, |
"Zoning boards are pretty powerful," said the Rev. Chris Keay, pastor at Freedom Baptist. "They can zone churches out, which was pretty much what was done in our case."
Zoning regulations did not permit worship assembly where the office building was located. The local zoning board denied a variance request, saying there was not ample parking for the church and the dentist's office, despite the fact services were never held during office hours.
"They backed us in a corner and we had to sue under the RLUIPA law," Keay said. "In the midst of that, they agreed to give us a zoning variance to be there."
While RLUIPA has been a powerful tool for small churches, big churches have benefited from its protection as well.
The Rev. Jerry Falwell relied on the law after his Thomas Road Baptist Church ran afoul of several unusual laws in his home state of Virginia.
When Falwell's church outgrew its 28-acre site in Lynchburg, the church drew up plans to build a new 6,000-seat sanctuary on 60 acres elsewhere in the city. Standing in the way, however, was the Virginia Constitution, which limits the amount of land a church can own within a city to 15 acres, although cities are permitted to pass ordinances allowing ownership of up to 50 acres.
Falwell filed suit in November 2001, citing RLUIPA and the First and 14th Amendments.
The most substantial restriction on churches challenged in Falwell's suit was Article IV of the Virginia Constitution, which prohibited churches from being incorporated. That provision was adopted at the urging of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who feared a church would become too powerful if allowed to incorporate.
A federal judge later ordered the state to issue a corporate charter to Thomas Road Baptist Church. The land-use issue became moot because no such restriction applied to corporations.
A Two-sided Issue
While church leaders and religious libertarians hail RLUIPA, municipal attorneys don't share their enthusiasm.
Lani Williams, an associate counsel for the International Municipal Lawyers Association
|
"We understand churches are vital to a thriving community, but we do want them to be treated equally, with everyone else." Lani Williams, International Municipal Lawyers Association |
"The reason we oppose RLUIPA is it changes the playing field for churches in the land-use context," Williams said. "We believe everybody should be treated equally. In this country, religion doesn't get an automatic pass."
She said elected officials are charged with developing land-use, zoning and building laws that protect communities as a whole and no entity, whether it is a church or a commercial enterprise, should receive extra protection.
"We understand churches are vital to a thriving community, but we do want them to be treated equally, with everyone else," she said.
Williams said the issue evokes emotion on both sides of the debate.
"It's hard for the constituencies that I represent to explain that we're not out to get anyone," she said. "We really are out to protect everybody's interests and to do it in a fair way."
She said elected officials and organizations such as IMLA are often portrayed as anti-church, which is not the case.
"That's very hard for us because many of us go to church and are active in our churches. We believe in churches and try to raise our families in churches. So, we're really in a tough position to explain (that) we're not anti-church, we're not anti-religion and we're not anti-Christian. We just don't think religion trumps everything else."
