Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch

The Lighthouse Mission has been battling with the City of Long Branch, New Jersey since 1994, seeking permission to provide social services and conduct worship services in a building at 162 Broadway. Although initially encouraged by then-Mayor Adam Schneider, the Lighthouse Mission's Rev. Kevin Brown found that he was unable to persuade city zoning officials to consider granting a variance that would allow the proposed uses in the C-1 district in which the building is located. A Baptist congregation had been engaged in similar activity in rented space at 159 Broadway, located directly across the street, since March of 1992.

A suit was filed in Monmouth County Superior Court on June 8, 2000, charging the city with violations of the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fair Housing Act. The case was later transfered to U.S. District Court in Newark, and a RLUIPA claim was added on October 23, 2000 — a month after the law was signed by President Clinton.

The Becket Fund submitted an amicus brief in the case on May 7, 2001, arguing that the city's narrow challenge to RLUIPA's constitutionality should be rejected.

New attorneys took over the city's case at the end of 2001, and early in 2002 they withdrew their challenge to RLUIPA's constitutionality without prejudice.

On April 7, 2003, Judge William H. Walls denied the church's motions for partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction, citing the district court decision in C.L.U.B. v. City of Chicago, which held that a "zoning scheme must be viewed as a whole." Judge Walls found that "it is undisputed that churches and other religious assemblies are permitted uses in other areas of Long Branch and that Plaintiffs could establish their church and mission in those areas without even having to apply for a variance." He added that "without further evidence . . . the Court cannot determine whether the Long Branch zoning scheme treats Plaintiffs' religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution."

First Third Circuit Appeal

(Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch, Case No. 00-33366, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Case No. 03-2343)

On May 1, 2003, The Becket Fund joined Red Bank attorney Michael Kasanoff as co-counsel for the Lighthouse Institute and Rev. Brown, and on May 5, a notice of appeal was filed with the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was limited solely to the question of whether the Long Branch zoning ordinance facially violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and RLUIPA's equal terms provision.

In a brief filed with the Third Circuit on September 18, 2003, The Becket Fund argued that "the lower court's analysis of the Mission's statutory and constitutional claims was fatally flawed from the start because it failed to consider, contrary to the binding authority of the Supreme Court and this Court, whether churches were treated worse than secular assembly uses in the particular zone at issue, where the Mission sought to locate. Having failed to properly examine how Long Branch's Ordinance treated churches in the relevant zone, the lower court erred in failing to hold that the Ordinance discriminatorily favors nonreligious public assembly land uses over religious public assembly land uses."

The brief also rejected Judge Walls' interpretation of other case law, including C.L.U.B.: "It is no constitutional answer to tell the Mission, as the lower court did, that it can (and must) locate in some other suburban neighborhood away from the community it seeks to serve. . . . This is the equivalent of telling Mother Theresa's order to abandon their ministry in Calcutta's poorest regions and take up residence in the Taj Mahal." The city's zoning ordinance is so discriminatory that "every single activity described by the Mission to be engaged in at the Property would be permitted, but for their religious nature!"

On October 10, 2003, Long Branch filed a reply brief.  Lighthouse and the Becket Fund filed their reply brief on October 24.

On May 28, 2004, the Third Circuit ruled against the Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism.  A cert petition filed on October 22, 2004 was denied by the Supreme Court on January 24, 2005. 

Second Third Circuit Appeal

In July, 2004, Lighthouse filed an amended complaint in the District Court, and in November, 2005, both parties filed motions for summary judgement.  On December 27, 2005, Judge Walls denied the Church's motion for summary judgement and granted the CIty's.  The Church again brought the Becket on board (The Becket Fund was not involved at the District Court level) and filed an appeal.  In this case, the Third Circuit would be ruling solely on whether the City's zoning ordinances, new and old, violate RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

On May 31, 2006,  the Becket Fund submitted its opening brief to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Lighthouse Mission.  The City responded on June 29, 2006.  Following one more reply brief from the Becket Fund on July 13, oral arguments were scheduled for March 27, 2007.

Resources & Documents

• Church\\\'s Opening Brief, Sept. 18, 2003 (PDF, 174.72KB)
• Second Appeal Opening Brief (May 31, 2006) (PDF, 289.74KB)
• Second Appeal Reply Brief (July 13, 2007) (PDF, 142.01KB)

Articles & News Items

• "Lighthouse Mission Continues Fight Against Long Branch, NJ," May 31, 2006
• "Lighthouse Mission Fights for Survival," March 29, 2007