Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne

In early 2001, Grace United Methodist Church in Cheyenne, Wyoming, began taking steps toward building an addition to their church, to be used as a day-care center. When they applied for a day-care license from the city, they were surprised to learn that the city zoning ordinance prohibited day-care centers in LR-1 districts, residential areas where most churches are located. The zoning officer suggested that they apply for a variance, which they did.

But when the Board of Adjustments took up the request on April 19, 2001 the application was denied on a 6-0 vote.

Later, Rev. Jon Laughlin learned that the primary zoning ordinance passed in 1988 initially permitted day-care centers in residential areas. But a 1995 amendment eliminated the provision. The minutes of the meeting at which change was made contained no mention of any complaints about day care centers in such areas. The change was approved without any debate on record, and it remains unclear why the change was made.

Pastor Laughlin said that at the April 19 hearing, he and his attorney were prohibited from raising the issue of the constitutionality of the ordinance or of its compliance with RLUIPA.

On February 20, 2002, the church filed a complaint (PDF format) in U.S. District Court asking for a preliminary injunction and a declaration that the ordinance is invalid.

On April 23, 2002, the city filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which was later converted by the court to a motion for summary judgment. The church filed a cross motion for summary judgment on May 20. Judge Clarence A. Brimmer held an initial hearing on the motions on May 31, and additional argument on November 25.

On December 16, 2002 Judge Brimmer granted the city's motion for summary judgment on two of the three claims brought by the church, but set a date for a jury trial on the remaining claim, alleging violation of RLUIPA. He observed that city officials "do not appear to challenge the constitutionality of RLUIPA; therefore the Court will presume the Act is constitutional." Summary judgment on the church's RLUIPA claim, Judge Brimmer wrote, "would be inappropriate because Grace United has not carried its burden of demonstrating that Cheyenne's land use regulations impose a substantial burden on its exercise of religion." Moreover, the judge reasoned, "a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether operating a day care with a religious component constitutes religious exercise under RLUIPA."

Judge Brimmer rejected all of the church's constitutional claims. Noting that "the threshold question in free exercise cases is whether the law that allegedly prohibits the free exercise of religion is neutral and of general applicability," he decided that the Cheyenne zoning ordinance was neutral and generally applicable, and thus could be used to bar the church from adding a day care center. He cited a 1988 Tenth Circuit case, Messiah Baptist Church v. County of Jefferson, in which the Court held that there was no evidence that "building a church or building a church on the particular site [was] intimately related to the religious tenets of the church."

In March 2003 the city challenged the constitutionality of RLUIPA, and the case was certified to the Attorney General. The U.S. Department of Justice intervened to defend the statute on April 25, 2003, but Judge Brimmer severed the constitutional and jurisdictional issues from the underlying factual dispute going to trial.

The jury trial began on June 9, 2003, and lasted five days. On June 17 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the city and its co-defendants, and on June 25, Judge Brimmer entered judgement "against Grace United Methodist Church as failing to prove the essential elements of its prima facie case under RLUIPA that its operation of a day care center was a sincere exercise of religion." The church was permanently enjoined from using its property as a day care center.

On July 24, 2003 the church filed notice of an appeal to the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On February 25, 2004 The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed an amicus brief (PDF format) with the Tenth Circuit, arguing that Judge Brimmer applied the wrong standards when he granted the city's motions for summary judgment. He erred in "applying mere rational basis review," rather than the strict scrutiny required "in circumstances in which individualized exemptions from a general requirement are available," the brief stated. "To be fair, the District Court did not have the benefit of this Court's recent decision in Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, where it defined the parameters of the 'individualized exceptions' doctrine." Judge Brimmer's decision, however, "directly contradicts this Court's decision in Axson-Flynn."

Moreover, in relying heavily on Messiah Baptist Church v. County of Jefferson, a case "decided in 1988, two years prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Smith and five years before Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye," the court was invoking a decision that predated the more recent Free Exercise jurisprudence, "especially the renewed importance of the individualized exceptions doctrine that Smith and Hialeah fashioned." In addition, the court completely ignored the fact that Messiah Baptist Church involved a facial challenge to the zoning ordinance, not a challenge to the application of land use regulation, as is the case in Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne.

"An examination of cases in the church-zoning field leads inescapably to the conclusion that (1) fcial challenges to the mere existence of zoning ordinances are (generally) judged under rational basis review as 'neutral and generally applicable' laws; but (2) challenges to denials of land use permits are judged under strict scrutiny review as 'systems of individualized exemptions,'" the Becket Fund brief argues.

The lower court also failed to apply the proper standard when deciding whether the city's action unconstitutionally burdened the church's Free Exercise of religion, the brief states. "The appropriate standard for determining whether a burden is 'substantial' is to ask whether government action puts pressure on a religious institution to modify their religious behavior, or prevents it from engaging in religious conduct, in a way that is greater than a mere inconvenience."

In this case, "to legally require a disjointed ministry—to tell a church that it can worship at Point A and send its most junior members to be taught and cared for many miles away at Point B—is hardly simply a matter of 'inconvenience.'"

"Put another way, the City's flat rejection of the variance actually inhibits the Church from engaging in the full range of activities it has determined necessary to carry out its religious mission of evangelizing to youth," the brief concludes. "At the very least, this Court should remand the matter for consideration of the substantial burden issue under the correct legal standard."

The church is represented by the law firm of Rothgerber, Johnson and Lyons, which has a number of offices throughout Wyoming and Colorado. (Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, case # 02-CV-35)

Media Coverage:

Jury rules against Wyoming church in zoning dispute (Associated Press, as posted by the First Amendment Center, June 19, 2003)

Jury favors city in church lawsuit (Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, by Allison Fashek, June 18, 2003)

Proposed day care could test federal law (Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, by Paula Glover, March 30, 2001)

Grace United to sue city (Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, by Tim Lockwood, February 20, 2002)