The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled against a Roman Catholic group challenging the use of their land in connection with an interstate natural gas pipeline. The Adorers of the Blood of Christ (“Adorers”) is “an ecclesial group of women living in community … whose religious practice includes protecting and preserving creation, which they believe is a revelation of God.” They believe that “God calls humans to treasure land as a gift of beauty and sustenance that should not be used in an excessive or harmful way.” The Adorers own land in Columbia, Pennsylvania used to sponsor the St. Anne’s Retirement Community and for growing crops by local farmers. In February 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued an order authorizing the construction and operation of 199.5 miles of new pipeline in Pennsylvania connecting to existing pipelines running to South Carolina. The pipeline project will reportedly supply gas to more than 7 million American homes. The Adorers’ land was to be included as part of the pipeline project, and FERC issued an order authorizing the taking of the Adorers’ property by eminent domain for the project, if necessary. Continue Reading
The Planning and Law Division of the American Planning Association is pleased to host the upcoming webcast Rules of the Game: A Framework for Fair & Effective Zoning Hearings on July 26, 2018. Registration for individuals is $20 for PLD members and $45 for non-members. Registration for two or more people at one computer is $140.
This webinar will cover the legal requirements for public hearings, including constitutional due process considerations, and provide tips on how to more effectively manage these hearings.
Speakers include David Silverman, AICP and Kurt Asprooth of Ancel Glink in Chicago.
CM | 1.50 | Law
CLE 1.50 through Illinois State Bar
The Second Circuit recently issued a Summary Order in Islamic Community Center for Mid Westchester v. City of Yonkers Landmark Preservation Board (2d Cir. 2018) detailing what zoning relief a plaintiff must seek at the local level before filing suit. The case involved the Islamic Community Center of Mid Westchester’s (ICCMW) claims that it had been the target of religious discrimination when the property it purchased to develop with a mosque was designated as a landmark by the City of Yonkers Landmark Preservation Board. Four months later, ICCMW sued, alleging the landmark designation violated its First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and RLUIPA.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (also known as “ripeness”), since ICCMW did not apply for a certificate of appropriateness to develop the property as a mosque. Continue Reading
Recent amendments to the zoning code of the City of Monroe, North Carolina (the “City”) are unconstitutional, according to the Complaint filed by At the Cross Fellowship Baptist Church (the “Church”), a congregation of approximately 30 people established in 2017, which describes itself as having “a calling to serve the Monroe, North Carolina community.” Continue Reading
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018) regarding Presidential Proclamation No. 9645, otherwise known as the “Travel Ban.” To the dismay of many, the Supreme Court upheld the Travel Ban in spite of challenges that the President (a) did not have authority to issue the ban under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and (b) violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by targeting and discriminating against Muslims. One of the major takeaways from the majority’s opinion is the extreme deference to be afforded the President when it comes to national security matters. In many other situations, extrinsic evidence regarding religious animus (in the form of statements by government officials) may be given substantial weight when considering an Establishment Clause challenge. But here, such statements by the President were largely trumped by national security concerns. Continue Reading
Today the Supreme Court issued an important decision in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). The case does not involve land use or even free exercise of religion. But it is still noteworthy because it deals with local government decision-making and citizens’ free speech rights under the First Amendment. Most local governments have a handful (or more) of harsh critics who attend virtually all legislative meetings, are often the first to arrive at meetings and the first to scribe their names to the public comment sign-up sheet. The right to speak out against and petition the government is protected speech under the First Amendment. The facts giving rise to today’s decision involve the City of Riviera Beach’s arrest of Fane Lozman, who has appeared and spoken at more than 200 City meetings since 2006. Lozman was arrested in November 2006 while speaking critically of government officials during the public comment portion of a City Council meeting for violating its rules of procedure by discussing issues unrelated to the City and refusing to leave the podium. Video of Lozman’s arrest at the meeting is available here. The Supreme Court framed the issue before it as “the intersection of principles that define when arrests are lawful and principles that prohibit the government from retaliating against a person for having exercised the right to free speech.” Continue Reading
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice announced its “Place to Worship Initiative” to help protect houses of worship and religious institutions against discrimination in the local land use process. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions announced the new initiative and stated that President Trump “is an unwavering defender of the right of free exercise [of religion], and under his leadership, the Department of Justice is standing up for the rights of all Americans.” The full statement reads:
The Constitution doesn’t just protect freedom to worship in private – it protects the public exercise of religious belief, including where people worship together. Under the laws of this country, government cannot discriminate against people based on their religion – not in law enforcement, not in grant-making, not in hiring, and not in local zoning laws. President Trump is an unwavering defender of the right of free exercise, and under his leadership, the Department of Justice is standing up for the rights of all Americans. By raising awareness about our legal rights, the Place to Worship Initiative will help us bring more civil rights cases, win more cases, and prevent discrimination from happening in the first place.
Last month, a church known as Love of Life Fellowship, Inc. (the “Church”) sued the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, alleging religious discrimination resulting from its desired acquisition and use of 38 acres at 500 Baptist Drive in Chester, Virginia (the “Property”). The Church has used the Property for two years for religious worship and other activities, including community outreach, serving the homeless, assisting those struggling with and recovering from addiction, helping veterans, and providing youth programs. The Church filed suit after the County sought an injunction to prevent the Church from operating at the Property. Continue Reading
The Supreme Court issued its anticipated decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case concerns a Colorado baker’s refusal to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple because the baker’s religious beliefs are that “God’s intention for marriage from the beginning of history is that and should be the union of one man and woman.” The Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings conducted by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission deprived the baker of an impartial hearing because Commission members openly disparaged the baker’s religious views. The case demonstrates that local decision-makers, including those in the land use context, must remain fair and neutral when religious beliefs are at issue – even when they disagree with such beliefs or find them offensive. Continue Reading
Texas’ appellate court recently issued a decision involving the interplay between religious freedom and governmental police power, a “cowboy church,” and NIMBYism (Not-In-My-Back-Yard). True to its name, Denton County Cowboy Church (the “Church”) began hosting weekly rodeo events in 2009 at its outdoor arena. The arena is on the Cowboy Church’s 7-acre tract of land in the Town of Ponder, Texas. In 2014, the Cowboy Church bought a 12-acre parcel adjoining the 7-acre tract to build a new rodeo. It began constructing the new 61,000 square foot rodeo arena and applied for a commercial building permit. The Town issued the permit in July 2015, and several neighbors complained to the Town to revoke the permit and that construction of the rodeo be halted. In August 2015, the Cowboy Church filed an application for a special use permit to construct a “multi-use event center” on the 12 acres, which would “be used to house among other things, youth ministry, fellowship, and sermons as well as cowboy related rodeo type events, which currently occur and have been occurring for the past several years on [the original tract] in the outdoors, uncovered and uncontained.” According to the Cowboy Church, its new arena would result in less noise, light and dust pollution on nearby property owners than its existing arena. Continue Reading