Hale O Kaula Church asks federal court to enter judgment against MauiNov 30, 1999
Hale O Kaula Church, which has been engaged in a long battle for the right
to worship and add worship space to a building on its Maui upcountry property,
this week asked U.S. District Judge Samuel King to rule that the county's denial
of a special use permit constitutes a "substantial burden" on the
free exercise of religion. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (PDF format,
512K), filed on September 29, states that "all of the relevant legal precedent,"
including a number of recent federal court cases around the country, supports
such a conclusion.
The supporting Memorandum of Law, prepared by The Becket Fund and Honolulu
attorney Charles Hurd, cites several very recent cases, including Westchester
Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck (New York, opinion issued September 5) and
Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore (California, opinion issued
June 24). "The cases tell us that a ‘substantial burden' on religious
exercise occurs when government action puts pressure on an individual to modify
his religious behavior, or prevents him from engaging in religious conduct,
in a way that is greater than a mere inconvenience. . . . prohibiting Hale O
Kaula from using its property as a church meets this standard."
Under Supreme Court case law and the provisions of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a government can burden religious exercise
only if it has a "compelling government interest," and only if it
advances that interest by the "least restrictive means." The Hale
O Kaula brief notes that "Courts have scrupulously followed the Supreme
Court's instruction to classify only ‘paramount interests' of ‘the
highest order' as worthy of burdening religious exercise." Neither of Maui's
asserted interests, "preservation of agricultural land" and "fire
safety," meet that high standard in this case.
"Agricultural preservation, though a legitimate state interest, does not
remotely approach the level of a ‘compelling' interest," the church
brief states. Maui has often issued special use permits to churches in agricultural
zones, and the zoning rules expressly permit them as a special use. Moreover,
the church "already employ[s] their land for agricultural purposes more
than their neighbors," and would do so to an even greater degree if the
SUP were granted. And not only has Maui "failed to produce any evidence"
of a fire risk, but the county's own fire officials "found no fire protection
issue that could justify the denial of a Special Use Permit."
A hearing on the church's motion will be held in federal court in Honolulu
on December 12, 2003.
Relevant Cases
|
