In Holy Ghost Revival Ministries v. City of Marysville (W.D. Washington), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington considered claims of religious discrimination brought by Holy Ghost Revival Ministries (“Holy Ghost”) in connection with its transitional group housing for released convicts, many of whom are recovering addicts and sex offenders.  Holy Ghost alleged violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Fair Housing Act, and other state and federal law claims.  The Court granted the City’s motion to dismiss several of Holy Ghost’s claims, proving once again that RLUIPA, RFRA, and FHA are no trump cards, and that local governments need not capitulate when the facts and the law are on their side.

Holy Ghost asserts that providing low-cost transitional housing in group residences is a form of religious exercise because its residents receive “teachings grounded in scripture,” are referred to as “church members,” and state that “spiritual growth and adherence to scripture by this particular population of the Holy Ghost Church’s membership is best achieved … in a group living situation where all strive to do the Lord’s will.”  It operates 10 group houses in Snohomish County, which it calls “Mack Houses,” named after the group’s pastors John and Jane Mack.  Six of these Mack Houses are located in Marysville, one of which is used to store “large vehicles”  and another primarily as an office building for Holy Ghost.

In 2013, the City issued Holy Ghost an enforcement order stating that the storage of large vehicles violated the zoning code.  Holy Ghost received another enforcement order stating that it violated the zoning code because one of its other Mack Houses was situated on a parcel zoned for general commercial use.  A hearing examiner considered the enforcement orders and concluded that Holy Ghost was in violation of the zoning code.  As a result of this decision, Holy Ghost temporarily closed one of the subject Mack Houses to renovate it and bring it into compliance.  During this time, it provided housing to some of its members, but other members were displaced.  After renovations were completed, an unspecified number of Holy Ghost members resumed living at the property.  Holy Ghost continued to store large vehicles at the other property.

RLUIPA Substantial Burden

Holy Ghost alleged the City’s actions substantially burdened its religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA.  It asserted that (1) the enforcement action forced it to shut down the Mack House for a period of time; (2) some of its members were displaced during that time; and (3) that it had since renovated its property to comply with the hearing examiner’s decision.

The Court dismissed the substantial burden claim for several reasons.  First, Holy Ghost failed to explain how many of its members it is now able to provide with housing at the renovated property or what the renovations entailed, much less how this imposed a substantial burden on its religious exercise.  Second, “the mere fact [Holy Ghost] had to renovate one of the ten houses in some unknown fashion in order to continue housing residents at that location is not a burden that is ‘oppressive to a significantly great extent.’”  Third, the Court noted that Holy Ghost had “fail[ed] to allege that enforcement of the zoning ordinance in fact caused them to provide housing to fewer individuals than before, let alone that ‘no other suitable sites exist’ for their operations.”

RLUIPA Equal Terms

Unlike the substantial burden claim, the Court concluded that Holy Ghost had properly pleaded an equal terms claim and allowed that claim to proceed: “Because the complaint alleges that the Mack Houses, which are religious institutions, were singled out by the City for enforcement of the zoning code, the court concludes that [Holy Ghost] … adequately alleged treatment on a less than equal basis with secular comparators, such as other group housing institutions.”

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

Holy Ghost’s RFRA claim was dismissed because it was premised on municipal law rather than federal law.  In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the states.  Holy Ghost’s RFRA claim failed because it was premised on municipal law; not federal law.

Fair Housing Act (FHA)

Holy Ghost’s FHA claim alleged that the City had refused to make reasonable accommodations.  This claim was rejected because Holy Ghost had failed to allege the proposed accommodation it sought and whether it was reasonable.  Nor did the complaint allege that an accommodation was needed to place Holy Ghost’s handicapped residents on an equal footing with non-handicapped residents.  While Holy Ghost also pointed to extrinsic evidence to support a disparate treatment claim on the basis of religion, the Court refused to consider such evidence in the context of the City’s motion to dismiss.  Although the Court dismissed the FHA claim, it granted leave to Holy Ghost to amend its complaint to potentially cure the FHA claim.

To review the rest of Holy Ghost’s state and federal law claims, the decision may be accessed here.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Evan Seeman Evan Seeman

Evan J. Seeman is a lawyer in Robinson+Cole’s Hartford office and focuses his practice on land use, real estate, environmental, and regulatory matters, representing local governments, developers and advocacy groups. He has spoken and written about RLUIPA, and was a lead author of…

Evan J. Seeman is a lawyer in Robinson+Cole’s Hartford office and focuses his practice on land use, real estate, environmental, and regulatory matters, representing local governments, developers and advocacy groups. He has spoken and written about RLUIPA, and was a lead author of an amicus curiae brief at the petition stage before the United States Supreme Court in a RLUIPA case entitled City of San Leandro v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.

Evan serves as the Secretary/Treasurer of the APA’s Planning & Law Division. He also serves as the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Section of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section, and is the former Co-Chair of its Municipal Law Section. He has been named to the Connecticut Super Lawyers® list as a Rising Star in the area of Land Use Law for 2013 and 2014. He received his B.A. in political science and Russian studies (with honors) from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, where he was selected as the President’s Fellow in the Department of Modern Languages and Literature. Evan received his Juris Doctor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, where he served on the Connecticut Law Review. While in law school, he interned with the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General in the environmental department, and served as a judicial intern for the judges of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court. Following law school, Evan clerked for the Honorable F. Herbert Gruendel of the Connecticut Appellate Court.

Photo of Dwight Merriam Dwight Merriam

Dwight H. Merriam founded Robinson+Cole’s Land Use Group in 1978. He represents land owners, developers, governments and individuals in land use matters, with a focus on defending governments in RLUIPA cases. Dwight is a Fellow and Past President of the American Institute of…

Dwight H. Merriam founded Robinson+Cole’s Land Use Group in 1978. He represents land owners, developers, governments and individuals in land use matters, with a focus on defending governments in RLUIPA cases. Dwight is a Fellow and Past President of the American Institute of Certified Planners, a former Director of the American Planning Association (APA), a former chair of APA’s Planning and Law Division, Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of State and Local Government Law, Chair of the Institute of Local Government Studies at the Center for American and International Law, a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, a member of the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute National Advisory Board, a Fellow of the Connecticut Bar Foundation, a Counselor of Real Estate, a member of the Anglo-American Real Property Institute, and a Fellow of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers.

He teaches land use law at the University of Connecticut School of Law and at Vermont Law School and has published over 200 articles and eight books, including Inclusionary Zoning Moves Downtown, The Takings Issue, The Complete Guide to Zoning, and Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context. He is the senior co-author of the leading casebook on land use law, Planning and Control of Land Development (Eighth Edition). Dwight has written and spoken widely on how to avoid RLUIPA claims and how to successfully defend against them in court. He is currently writing a book on the subject, RLUIPA DEFENSE, for the American Bar Association.

Dwight has been named to the Connecticut Super Lawyers® list in the area of Land Use Law since 2006, is one of the Top 50 Connecticut Super Lawyers in Connecticut, and is one of the Top 100 New England Super Lawyers (Super Lawyers is a registered trademark of Key Professional Media, Inc.). He received his B.A. (cum laude) from the University of Massachusetts, his Masters of Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina, where he was the graduation speaker in 2011, and his J.D. from Yale. He is a featured speaker at many land use seminars, and presents monthly audio land use seminars for the International Municipal Lawyers Association. Dwight has been cited in the national press from The New York Times to People magazine and has appeared on NBC’s The Today Show, MSNBC and public television.

Dwight also had a career in the Navy, serving for three tours in Vietnam aboard ship, then returning to be the Senior Advisor of the Naval ROTC Unit at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill where he taught Defense Administration and Military Management as an Assistant Professor in the undergraduate and graduate curriculum in Defense Administration and Military Management. He left active duty after seven years to attend law school, but continued on for 24 more years as a reserve Surface Warfare Officer with two major commands, including that of the reserve commanding officer of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. He retired as a Captain in 2009 after 31 years of service.