Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases

On June 6, 2017, the United States and the City of Des Plaines, IL, entered into a settlement agreement resolving the United States’ claims in United States v. City of Des Plaines, Illinois (N.D. Ill.) that it violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) by denying a rezoning request by an Islamic group to use a vacant office building as a place of worship. The United States’ complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2015, alleged substantial burden, equal terms, and discrimination. The settlement agreement requires the City to obtain training, to provide notice to the public that it adheres to RLUIPA, establishes a RLUIPA complaint process, and places limitations on the discretion the City can exercise in its consideration of religious land use applications, among other requirements. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court for the North District of Illinois ruled that the United States’ claims should proceed to trial, and further ruled that the City misapplied its parking regulations to impose heightened parking requirements on the Islamic group that were not imposed on non-Muslim groups, and that the City did not use the least restrictive means in addressing purported concerns with the group’s rezoning request.

Press Release (6/6/17)
Press Release (9/30/15)

On January 5, 2015, the court entered the consent order in United States v. City of St. Anthony (D. Minn.) under which the City will permit AHIC to worship permanently at its property. The consent order requires the city to pay $200,000 to the Abu-Huraira Islamic Center (AHIC) and includes injunctive relief, education, training, and reporting. On August 27, 2014, the United States filed a complaint under RLUIPA in United States v. City of St. Anthony Village (D. Minn.), alleging that the City of St. Anthony Village, Minnesota, imposed a substantial burden on and treated the Abu-Huraira Islamic Center (AHIC) on less than equal terms with non-secular assemblies when it denied AHIC's request for a conditional use permit to operate a place of religious assembly. After conducting a search for adequate prayer space lasting nearly three years, AHIC found an office building that met its needs and entered a purchase agreement. The property was in a central location for AHIC's congregation, had ample parking, and had a currently unused basement space that could accommodate a 11,600 square foot worship space, while keeping most of the above ground area for commercial tenants. The property was in a Light Industrial zone that permitted "assemblies, meeting lodges, and convention halls" as conditional uses, including a union hall that was rented out for banquet functions. Despite a recommendation for approval from the St. Anthony Village Planning Staff and the Planning Commission, the City Council denied the conditional use permit.

On March 8, 2013, the United States filed a complaint and agreed order in United States v. City of Lomita (C.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that the city violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) when it denied the Islamic Center of the South Bay's application to tear down the aging and scattered structures on its property and construct a new mosque. The denial is alleged to have created a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the Islamic Center and its members. The agreed order requires the city to consider a renewed application by the Islamic Center on an expedited schedule contained in a separate agreement between the city and the Islamic Center. The settlement also contains recordkeeping, reporting, and training requirements for city officials. The court entered the agreed order on March 8, 2013.

On July 18, 2012, the United States filed a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order in United States v. Rutherford County, Tennessee (M.D. Tenn.), alleging that the county violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) when, in compliance with a state chancery court ruling, it refused to process or issue a certificate of occupancy to the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro for a recently constructed mosque. The same day, the court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the county to immediately conduct an inspection of the mosque, to inform the Islamic Center of any deficiencies and to issue a certificate of occupancy once all deficiencies have been corrected by the Islamic Center, notwithstanding the chancery court orders. The complaint states that a certificate of occupancy is needed immediately so that the Islamic Center can hold worship services at the new facility during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which begins at sundown on July 19. The complaint alleges that the county's refusal came as a result of a recent state chancery court order last month, which, acting in response to a motion brought by individuals opposed to the mosque, enjoined the county from processing or issuing a certificate. The chancery court ruled that the county had provided insufficient public notice prior to the hearing at which the county approved the mosque's site-plan. The chancery court imposed a heightened notice requirement on the mosque, one not imposed on other religious or secular organizations. The case began when the Islamic Center, which has been operating in Rutherford County since 1982, sought to construct a new mosque for its growing congregation. In 2009, it purchased land for that purpose and applied for site-plan approval. After considering the proposal at a regularly scheduled, advertised meeting, the county approved the site plan. Following the county's approval, opponents of the mosque filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to stop construction. Ultimately, with the exception of the plaintiffs' public-notice claim, the chancery court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The United States' filed an amicus brief in Estes v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission (Chancery Court for Rutherford County, Tennessee) on October 18, 2010. On July 29, 2014 the court dismissed the case.

On March 14, 2012, the United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs (5th Circuit). This case involves a small church that leased space in the central business district of Holly Springs, Mississippi, but was denied a permit to renovate and occupy the space. In Holly Springs, churches must meet a number of standards that other uses need not meet, including approval of the Mayor and Board of Alderman and the approval of 60% of homeowners within a 1,300-foot radius. After the church's permit was denied, it filed a complaint under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), challenging the ordinance both facially and as applied, and sought a preliminary injunction against the city. The court denied the preliminary injunction on the grounds that the plaintiff had not showed irreparable harm. The United States' amicus brief argues that the disparate treatment of churches compared to other assemblies violates Section 2(b)(2) of RLUIPA, which provides that religious assemblies may not be treated on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institutions. The brief also argues that the church had shown that it would be irreparably harmed if the discrimination against it were allowed to continue.

On August 26, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and a consent decree on August 29th, in United States v. City of Lilburn (N.D. Ga.), a religious discrimination case brought under RLUIPA alleging that the city discriminated against an Islamic group seeking to construct a mosque by denying the group's applications for rezoning and a special use permit. The settlement requires the city to conduct RLUIPA training, establish procedures for addressing RLUIPA complaints, report to the United States, retain records, and expedite other permitting needed for the Islamic group to construct the mosque. The court entered the consent decree on September 1, 2011.

On August 4, 2011, the court approved an agreed order resolving the United States' injunctive and declaratory claims in United States v. City of Walnut (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on September 30, 2010, alleged that the city violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), when, in 2008, it denied a conditional use permit to the Chung Tai Zen Center. The Zen Center sought the permit so that it could build and operate a Buddhist house of worship at property it then owned in the city. The agreed order, which is enforceable by the court, mandates that the City of Walnut not impose differential zoning or building requirements on other houses of worship. The City also agreed that its leaders and managers, and certain city employees, will attend training on the requirements of RLUIPA. In addition, the City will adopt new procedures that clarify its appeals process for houses of worship, and will report periodically to the Justice Department. The Buddhist house of worship's private claims have not been settled, and trial is expected to occur in April or May 2012.

On April 28, 2011, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Congregation Etz Chaim v. City of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal.), in support of the Congregation's motion for summary judgment in this Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) suit. The statement of interest addresses the standard the court should apply in evaluating the Congregation's RLUIPA Section 2(b)(1) claim, and discusses certain criteria for determining whether a substantial burden exists under RLUIPA Section 2(a). On January 6, 2011, the court issued an order holding that the City's administrative zoning decisions did not preclude the congregation's RLUIPA claims in federal court. The United States had filed a statement of interest on November 1, 2010. In the order, the court quoted the United States' Statement of Interest extensively.

On June 17, 2010, the court entered a consent decree resolving the United States' complaint in United States v. Village of Suffern (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on September 26, 2006, alleged that Suffern's denial of a zoning variance to Bikur Cholim to operate a "Shabbos House" near Good Samaritan Hospital substantially burdened the religious exercise of Orthodox Jews, in violation of Section 2(a) of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). A Shabbos House provides meals and lodging to Orthodox Jews on the Sabbath and other holy days to allow them to observe their religious beliefs and practices on those days such as engaging in prayer and refraining from driving and other activities. Bikur Cholim's Shabbos House in Suffern provides meals and lodging to Orthodox Jews who take patients to and from Good Samaritan Hospital, visit patients at the hospital, or are patients released from the hospital. The complaint further alleged that there are no other locations within a reasonable and safe walking distance of Good Samaritan Hospital that could accommodate Orthodox Jews on the Sabbath or other holy days and afford these Orthodox Jews the opportunity to exercise their religious beliefs by visiting the sick and observing the laws of the Sabbath. On June 24, 2009, the court denied the Village's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment and the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment, which had been pending since November 2007. Under the terms of the consent decree the Village of Suffern has agreed to permit the shabbos house to continue operation at its current location. The defendant also agreed not to discriminate on the basis of religion or impose or implement any land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of any person, assembly or institution. The defendant further agreed to comply with certain notice and training requirements to ensure that Village officials are knowledgeable about and comply with the requirements of RLUIPA. Bikur Cholim separately sued the Village for, among other things, violating RLUIP A in a lawsuit entitled Bilrur Cholim, Inc., Rabbi Simon Lauber, Fellowship House of Suffern, Inc., Maika Stern, Sara Halperin, Michael Lipman, Abraham Langsam and Jacob Levita v. The Village of Suffern, (the "Private Suit"). The parties to the private suit have entered into a Private Settlement which resolved the suit and provides relief to the private plaintiffs. The consent decree will remain in effect for four years. The case was primarily handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

On January 30, 2009, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville (M.D. Tenn.) The complaint, filed on September 29, 2008, alleged that the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metropolitan Government) violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by discriminating against Teen Challenge, a Christian substance abuse treatment program. The complaint alleged that the Metropolitan Government discriminated against individuals with disabilities in violation of the FHA and imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA. According to the complaint, the Metropolitan Government denied Teen Challenge a building permit to operate in Goodlettsville, Tennessee, and amended its zoning code in a manner that prevented Teen Challenge from using the property. The consent decree requires the Metropolitan Government to train nearly 100 employees and officials who make zoning and land use decisions on the requirements of the FHA and RLUIPA, to appoint a compliance officer to receive complaints and ensure compliance with the settlement, and to provide periodic reports to the Justice Department. As part of the settlement, the Metropolitan Government rescinded the amendment to its zoning code that affected Teen Challenge and adopted a reasonable accommodation policy for individuals with disabilities. The Metropolitan Government will also pay a $20,000 civil penalty to the United States and $50,000 to participants in Teen Challenge's program.

On July 20, 2007, the court granted the United States' motion for leave to file an amicus brief in Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. v. Township of Wayne (D. N.J.), a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) case brought by plaintiffs who are seeking to construct a mosque in the Township. The Township commenced eminent domain proceedings against the Albanian Association Fund's land while its application for a conditional use permit to construct a mosque on that land was pending before the Township's Planning Board. The Township argued on summary judgment that eminent domain proceedings are not covered by RLUIPA. The Division's brief argues that the Townships' commencement of eminent domain proceedings in this case constitutes the implementation of a land use regulation covered by RLUIPA.

On July 7, 2006, the Court entered consent orders resolving both the Synagogue's and the Division's lawsuits against the City in United States v. City of Hollywood (S.D. Fla.), a RLUIPA case in which the Division alleges that the City of Hollywood, Florida violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, when, among other things, the City denied the Hollywood Community Synagogue's application for a special exception. The consent orders resolving the United States complaint against the City of Hollywood that the Division filed on April 26, 2005. As part of the consent order between the city and the United States, the city agreed to allow the Hollywood Community Synagogue to operate permanently as a house of worship at its properties, and to expand if it should acquire additional properties within a block of its current location. The city also agreed that its leaders and managers, and certain city employees, will attend training on the requirements of RLUIPA. In addition, the city will adopt new complaint procedures, and report periodically regarding matter related to compliance with the Order to the Justice Department. In a separate consent order between the city and the Synagogue, filed with the court at the same time, the city also agreed to pay the Synagogue $2 million in damages and attorneys fees and costs.