January 9, 2025
Blog
U.S. SUES GEORGIA CITY UNDER RLUIPA FOR SHUTTING DOWN HOMELESS SHELTER
In a Complaint filed in December, the U.S. government has filed suit against a city in Georgia that has sought to close a religious ministry that offers shelter and other services to the homeless. The effort to shutter the shelter violates the substantial burden prong of RLUIPA, the federal government maintains.
This case is an example of how the federal government can step in to file suit on behalf of RLUIPA plaintiffs. In other instances, the federal government will file a statement of interest in a case. Either way, once the federal government is involved on the plaintiff’s behalf, the case is quite difficult for the defense to win.
The Well is a religious ministry affiliated with the United Methodist Church and has operated in downtown Brunswick, Georgia, since 2014. The facility serves as a warming shelter for those experiencing homelessness but does not typically provide overnight care. Additional services offered include breakfast and lunch along with laundry and a location to receive mail. The Well is located in the heart of downtown Brunswick – an area many cities seek to keep free of religious organizations of all types in order to have more room for taxable businesses.
In the complaint, the federal government wisely pointed out that in prior years the local government touted the work of The Well as central to the city’s efforts to reduce homelessness. Despite this, in April 2023, the city government began to blame The Well for an increase in violent crime in the surrounding downtown area. This led the city to eventually pass a new ordinance that required those entities providing services to the homeless to first get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). At the same meeting, the city ordered a 65-day closure of The Well.
During the two-month closure, personnel from The Well met with city officials and worked on how to address any concerns about safety at and around The Well. However, meetings with the mayor and the city manager ended similarly – without any opportunity for The Well to remain open or obtain a CUP at either its current location or a second, new location.
The Well reopened in July 2023. Two weeks later, the City filed an action in local court seeking to get The Well closed by judicial order. While statistics indicate crime is down near The Well, the City continues to seek its closure. This is the case despite the local police department continuing to drop off persons to The Well who need some essential services the facility offers.
The Complaint in federal court was filed on December 16th and includes a single count alleging violation of the Substantial Burden prong of RLUIPA. RLUIPA states that no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that “imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution.” Such a substantial burden is permitted, however, if the government can show that the burden was imposed in the furtherance of a “compelling governmental interest, and the government has pursued the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Courts engage in fact intensive inquiries to determine whether a burden was substantial and, if so, then determines whether a compelling governmental interest was served.
We will follow this case as it progresses. For more information on RLUIPA and similar land use, First Amendment and constitutional matters, please contact Daniel Cortez at 313-213-4605. Additionally, please see our RLUIPA Primer that provides additional information about RLUIPA and similar First Amendment cases throughout the United States.
The Eleventh Circuit panel ruled that the Georgia district court applied a more exacting standard in determining that Vision Warriors failed to establish a substantial burden had been applied to its religious exercise. The appellate court noted that courts were consider six factors as part of an analysis as to whether a burden was substantial:
- Whether there was a showing of a genuine need for new or more space;
- The extent to which the zoning decision deprives the plaintiff of a way to engage in protected exercise;
- Whether there is a meaningful nexus between the impeded conduct and the religious exercise;
- Whether the City’s decision-making process reflects any arbitrariness evidencing any animus;
- Whether the denial was final or the claimant has a chance to modify the application; and
- Whether the burden is attributable to the government or if it was self-imposed.
In this instance, the district court erred because preventing Vision Warriors from operating its residential program was a substantial burden. The fact that Vision Warriors could continue non-residential religious exercise did not alleviate that burden, nor was Vision Warriors required to show that all of its religious exercise was totally precluded.
Overall, RLUIPA litigators will appreciate the list of six factors the Eleventh Circuit first broke out in 2020 and now continues to follow in evaluating whether a burden on religious exercise is substantial. We will also be watching to see if more circuit courts of appeal follow this decision and set out similar factors to evaluate.
The litigators at Cortez & Attorneys have more than a decade of experience litigating RLUIPA and related matters in federal courts across the country. This includes early resolution, comprehensive litigation and federal jury trial experience. If you believe you might have a claim under RLUIPA or related First Amendment protections, please contact Daniel Cortez to discuss this further.
Where a challenged ordinance is neutral on its face, a plaintiff seeking to establish a nondiscrimination claim under RLUIPA must put forth evidence of the government’s “discriminatory intent.” Accordingly, courts assessing discriminatory intent consider a multitude of factors, including the series of events leading up to a land use decision, the context in which the decision was made, whether the decision or decision-making process departed from established norms, statements made by the decision-making body and community members, reports issued by the decision-making body, whether a discriminatory impact was foreseeable, and whether less discriminatory avenues were available.
RLUIPA allows for a person to assert a violation of RLUIPA and obtain “appropriate relief” against a government, although the statute does not define what appropriate relief means. To date, courts have taken this to mean that religious organizations can obtain not only injunctive relief – such as the award of a previously denied permit – but also economic damages. This includes all classes of damages that are recoverable under 42 USC 1983, including economic and noneconomic damages. Punitive damages are also recoverable.
Notably, RLUIPA includes a safe harbor provision that allows the government to “avoid the preemptive force of any provision of this chapter by changing the policy or practice that results in a substantial burden on religious exercise, by retaining the policy or practice and exempting the substantially burdened religious exercise, by providing exemptions from the policy or practice for applications that substantially burden religious exercise, or by any other means that eliminates the substantial burden.” In other words, when a RLUIPA claim arises the government has an opportunity to voluntarily cease the conduct alleged to violate RLUIPA prior to formal litigation.
RLUIPA specifically provides that the prevailing party is entitled to recover their attorney fees from the opposing party. This consideration should be taken into account by both the plaintiff and the government.
RLUIPA is not a blanket exemption from zoning laws. As a general matter, religious institutions must apply for the same permits, follow the same requirements, and go through the same land use processes as other land use applicants. RLUIPA prohibits a local government from applying zoning laws or regulations in a way that substantially burdens religious exercise without a compelling justification pursued through the least restrictive means, or from that government treating religious uses less favorably than similarly situated nonreligious assemblies and institutions.
Because RLUIPA relates to the free exercise of religion, many RLUIPA cases involve state and federal First Amendment claims, such as Free Exercise and Free Assembly claims. Additionally, a RLUIPA plaintiff might allege Equal Protection violations under the Fourteenth Amendment.
If you believe you might have a claim under RLUIPA or related First Amendment protections, please contact Daniel Cortez if you wish to discuss this further.
Resources
Other Links
Contact Us:
© Copyright Cortez & Associates 2024
