Murphy v. Zoning Commission of the Town of New Milford

Robert and Mary Murphy have lived in their home on Jefferson St. in New Milford for 28 years, and in 1994, after Robert Murphy became ill, they began hosting prayer group meetings on Sunday afternoons. The number of people attending varied, but was never less than 10 or 12. Mr. Murphy testified that the prayer meetings brought "him closer to God" and changed his life after he became ill.

Late in the summer of 2000, the New Milford zoning office began getting complaints from neighbors because of traffic concerns and parking on the street near the Murphy's home. The Zoning Enforcement Office (ZEO) was ordered to investigate, and on December 19, 2000, issued a cease and desist order charging the Murphys with violations of zoning regulations governing the single-family district.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, filed suit and obtained a temporary restraining order from Judge Eginton. A hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction was held on January 18, 2001, after which the court ordered further briefing on several issues. The court delayed a ruling to give the parties time to discuss a settlement, but none was forthcoming.

On July 5, 2001, U.S. Magistrate Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons granted a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Zoning Commission of the Town of New Milford, Connecticut, barring them from enforcing a cease and desist order against the Murphys pending resolution of the case or further order of the court. Judge Fitzsimmons found that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their claim under RLUIPA. Additional detail can be found in the 42 page decision issued by the court (PDF format, 77K)

On November 8, 2002, the New Milford Zoning Commission moved for summary judgment, on grounds that RLUIPA is unconstitutional. The U.S. Justice Department intervened in the case to defend the statute, and filed a brief on December 3, 2002.

On December 30, 2002, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed an amicus curiae brief noting that the Town had been able to "muster only one case finding any part of RLUIPA unconstitutional—an unpublished, unappealed decision of a state trial court, in which a pro se prisoner was the only party defending the act. Thus, the Town has utterly ignored the overwhelming weight of authority in support of the constitutionality of RLUIPA: the already numerous federal decisions that have uniformly rejected (in both land-use and prison contexts) each and every challenge the Town raises here. Because the Town has not even started to overcome the strong presumption of constitutionality ordinarily afforded Acts of Congress, the present motion should be denied."

On September 30, 2003, Magistrate Judge Fitzsimmons issued a final ruling ("This is not a recommended ruling. The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge on January 10, 2001") on cross motions for summary judgment.

In the decision (PDF format, 131K), she wrote, "The court agrees with The Becket Fund that 'the prohibitions of RLUIPA based on the Enforcement Clause correspond so closely to current First and Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence that they scarcely require justification as 'preventive' or 'deterrent' measures that trigger the congruence/proportionality inquiry under Flores.'"

"The Cease and Desist Order issued by the defendant ZEO unconstitutionally abridges plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion and peaceably assemble. The Cease and Desist Order also violates plaintiffs' rights under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") and Connecticut's Act Concerning Religious Freedom. RLUIPA violates neither the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment nor the Enforcement Clause of section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief (PDF format, 347K) that was received by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 9, 2004. The brief supports the affirmance of U.S. Magistrate Judge Holly Fitzsimmons' decision.and defends the constitutionality of RLUIPA, a law that has been found constitutional in an overwhelming majority of cases that have reached the courts. The Second Circuit could also affirm the Murphys' win based on their First Amendment claims to Free Exercise of religion or their claim under the Connecticut Act Concerning Religious Freedom.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has vacated the lower court’s ruling. The lower court had held that the town of New Milford had substantially burdened the religious exercise of Robert and Mary Murphy by issuing an order requiring the Murphys to cease and desist from hosting regularly scheduled prayer meetings in their home. The Second Circuit vacated the decision without reaching the merits, holding that the Murphy’s RLUIPA and constitutional claims were not ripe for review in federal court. According to the Second Circuit, the Murphys should have first sought review of the cease and desist order by the New Milford Zoning Board of Appeals before filing their federal court action.

(Murphy v. Zoning Commission of the Town of New Milford, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Case No. 3:00CV2297)

Articles & News Items

• "Becket Fund defends constitutionality of RLUIPA," July 9, 2004