The most recent issue of Religious Freedom in Focus from the U.S. Department of Justice features the following case summary discussing a matter arising in Rockland County, New York regarding the location of religious housing to allow for visits to the infirmed in a nearby hospital. The U.S. Department of Justice has intervened in the lawsuit.
On June 25, the federal district court ruled that a suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) should proceed to trial against the Village of Suffern for in essence barring a Jewish group from operating a “Shabbos House” next to a hospital. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the United States’ suit stated a claim under RLUIPA that the Village’s actions imposed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the Shabbos House, which provides meals and lodging to observant Jews visiting patients at the hospital on the Sabbath and to patients released from the hospital on or near the Sabbath.
Bikur Cholim, which means “visiting the sick” in Hebrew, is an Orthodox Jewish organization that has operated a Shabbos House near Good Samaritan Hospital in Suffern since 1988. The Shabbos House enables observant Jews to travel to and from the hospital on the Sabbath. The nearest hotel to the hospital is a 1.8 mile walk along a major commercial road with only intermittent sidewalks. Originally, the Shabbos House was on the grounds of the hospital, but hospital expansion required it to move to a house across from the hospital’s parking lot, in a residential district.
The Village began enforcement action against Bikur Cholim on the ground that the Shabbos House is not a permitted use in a residential district. Bikur Cholim sought a variance, which the Village denied. The United States filed suit under Section 2(a)(1) of RLUIPA, contending that the Village’s actions imposed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Bikur Cholim and the people it serves without a compelling government interest pursued in the least restrictive means. The Village moved to dismiss, and moved for summary judgment. The United States also moved for summary judgment.
The court, in its June 25 ruling, rejected the Village’s motion to dismiss the United States’ complaint, holding that the United States’ allegations set forth a valid claim that the village was imposing a substantial burden on the Shabbos House, and held that the case must be permitted to proceed to trial. The court rejected the Village’s argument that facilitating visiting the sick on the Sabbath was not “religious exercise” for purposes of triggering the protections of RLUIPA. The court held that “religious exercise” under RLUIPA is intended “to be defined broadly,” and “covers most activity that is tied to a religious group’s mission.” Thus, the court held, Bikur Cholim’s facilitation of Sabbath observance for Jews visiting the hospital or being discharged from the hospital constitutes religious exercise under the statute. The court held, however, whether the Village’s actions were a “substantial burden” on that religious exercise, and whether the Village had a compelling interest for the restriction that was pursued in the least restrictive means, were issues for trial.
Bikur Cholim, Inc. v. Village of Suffern, 2009 WL 1819136 (S.D.N.Y. 6/25/2009).
The order can be accessed at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/suffernorder.pdf
This decision stretches the concept of “religious exercise” far beyond rationality. So now what amounts to a hotel is smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood. I’ll bet the neighbors are thrilled to have a hotel next door.
To suggest that visiting the ill is a religious exercise defies common sense. Rest assured, there has never been any religious component in any time I’ve visited an ill person in the hospital. Does the court dare to suggest that somebody who does not belong to a religion is engaging in a religious act when she visits a hospital patient?
Based on the summary here, this decision just goes beyond the realm of common sense and reflects how badly our judicial system is manipulated by the attorneys who play only to win at whatever cost.
By: DanL on August 12, 2009
at 10:11 am
Leaving aside the technical issues. this is the kind of case that gives RLUIPA opponents a bad name. One would expect that simple charity towards others would lead to some legal means of approving this use.
This comment does not negate the charge that people were also living in the house and paying rent!
By: Robert I. Rhodes on August 12, 2009
at 11:35 am
Dan,
For anyone who knows the Jewish faith, most very religous jews do not drive or ride on the sabbath so a place this close to the hospital would be appropriate under RLUPIA. I would hope that you would want to see an ill loved one and not be deprived of that based on a religous belief. People of all faiths must be flexiable to accomodate each others needs
By: Lee F on November 17, 2009
at 11:57 am