Broad array of religious groups ask U.S. appeals court to reverse zoning caseAug 28, 2002
An extraordinary array of religious groups today asked the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court decision involving the application
of zoning laws to religious organizations. The amicus curiae brief (PDF format,
179K) was prepared by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and was joined
by the American Jewish Congress, the Christian Legal Society, Civil Liberties
for Urban Believers, Congregation Etz Chaim, the Council on American Islamic
Relations, the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, the General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Hale O Kaula church, the Missionaries
of Charity (Brothers), Redwood Christian Schools and the Tri-City Union Gospel
Mission.
In San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill , city officials refused
to allow the college to move into the former St. Louise Hospital, which had
gone out of business in 1999. U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted the
city's motion for summary judgment on March 5, 2002, and in his constitutional
analysis, made the sweeping statement that "zoning laws are generally applicable
laws and are subject to rational basis review when challenged under the Free
Exercise Clause."
The Becket Fund brief argues that "there are at least three independent
and sufficient reasons why a higher level of scrutiny may apply." The "critically
important" question before the appeals court is whether zoning laws are
"always ‘neutral' and ‘generally applicable' laws." And
"given the extremely discretionary processes involved in most zoning decisions,
coupled with the enormous potential to burden religious exercise by forbidding
the use of land for religious purposes, the answer must be 'No.'"
The decision in San Jose Christian College "reflects a decades-long conflict"
between courts that have held that zoning laws may involve individualized assessments
and thus trigger a higher level of scrutiny by the courts, and those that have
held that such regulation is always "neutral and generally applicable,"
and therefore subject to a lower standard of review. The correct reading of
Supreme Court case law in the area, the Becket Fund brief states, is that zoning
laws are not categorically "neutral," that they are not always —
and not typically — "generally applicable," and that they may
implicate "hybrid rights" as defined by the Supreme Court. The brief
asks the appeals court to reverse the lower court's erroneous statement of the
law and remand the case for application of the correct legal principles.
The Becket Fund is the leading American public interest law firm litigating
on behalf of religious groups adversely affected by local zoning decisions.
The text of the amicus brief filed today, and much more information about this
and other similar cases may be found at www.becketfund.org and www.rluipa.com
.
Relevant Cases
|
