Fed. Dist Court of MN Enjoins City from Enforcing Conditions in RLUIPA Matter Reiterating that Serving the Homeless is Religious Exercise for Purposes of Substantial Burden Claim, but Dismissed Equal Terms Claims

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

First Lutheran Church brought an action against the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, alleging violations of its rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), as well as its rights under the constitutions of Minnesota and the United States, including the First Amendment. Specifically, First Lutheran alleged that the City violated its rights when it imposed fourteen conditions as part of a Determination of Similar Use regarding First Lutheran’s partnership with a non-profit day shelter that operated out of First Lutheran’s basement. One of the conditions at issue required a sign be posted restricting after-hours use of First Lutheran’s property so that the City could enforce trespassing laws, despite the fact that First Lutheran desired to permit this after-hours use of its property. Another of the conditions at issue limited the number of guests to twenty per day.

As to standing, the court found that First Lutheran had shown an injury in fact because it alleged harm that was sufficiently particularized, imminent, and concrete. Here, First Lutheran’s harm was particularized as Resolution 18-145 named First Lutheran and its tenant. Furthermore, the penalties for noncompliance included revocation of the City’s approval, and the City had already sent an inspector to Listening House on at least one occasion to ensure compliance.

As to First Lutheran’s RLUIPA’s substantial-burden claim, the court noted that the use was “for the purpose of religious exercise” because Listening House and First Lutheran jointly served the homeless, needy, and poor in numerous ways consistent with First Lutheran’s mission and historical practice. By limiting the use of First Lutheran’s property after hours, the court found that the City was preventing First Lutheran from being welcoming and inviting to the homeless, lonely, and needy for two-thirds of the day. Additionally, the twenty-person limit severely undermined First Lutheran’s mission, preferred practices, and message because it reduced the actual number of guests served, as well as First Lutheran’s ability to recruit new volunteers.

With respect to the sign-posting requirement, the court noted that the Resolution made it clear that the governmental interest furthered was the help the City needed to enforce trespassing. However, even assuming aiding the enforcement of trespassing was a compelling governmental interest, the court found that entry onto First Lutheran’s property after hours was not trespassing because First Lutheran consented to people being on church property after hours. Regarding the twenty-person limit, the City argued that the condition furthered the governmental interest in maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood. The court rejected this contention, finding that turning people away would likely result in more people occupying First Lutheran’s outdoor property and the neighborhood generally. Accordingly, the court determined that the twenty-person limit would not reduce overcrowding.
Next, the court addressed whether the sign-posting requirement and the twenty-person limit were the least restrictive means of furthering the City’s interests. Here, as long as First Lutheran consented to guests remaining on church property after hours, any sign-posting requirement so restricting after-hours use of church property would be overly restrictive. Likewise, the court rejected the contention that a numerical limit was the least restrictive means. While the City was concerned with petty offenses being committed in the neighborhood, the court noted that First Lutheran and Listening House were not the cause of those offenses. As such, the court held that First Lutheran had shown that it was likely to prevail on its RLUIPA substantial-burden claim with respect to the signposting requirement and the twenty-person limit contained in Resolution 18-145.

On its equal terms claim, First Lutheran next contended that the twenty-person limit, the sign-posting requirement, and the patio ban did not apply to Metropolitan State University, Dayton’s Bluff Library, or The Goat Coffee House. The court found that First Lutheran failed to demonstrate that these three institutions were appropriate comparators. Accordingly, the court declined to find that the City had treated First Lutheran on less than equal terms under RLUIPA.

The court next noted that there was little evidence that the City attempted to coerce First Lutheran into disavowing or abandoning its religious status or any of its religious beliefs, or that the City’s adoption of Resolution 18-145 was motivated by First Lutheran’s religious status or beliefs. The court therefore held that First Lutheran had not shown that it was likely to prevail on its free-exercise claim.

Lastly, applying strict scrutiny, the court held that the sign-posting requirement violated the First Amendment. As with First Lutheran’s RLUIPA substantial-burden claim, the court found that the sign-posting requirement neither furthered a compelling governmental interest nor was the least restrictive means for doing so. Accordingly, the court granted First Lutheran’s motion in part and enjoined the City from enforcing the sign-posting requirement and the twenty-person limit.

First Lutheran Church v City of St. Paul, 2018 WL 32333146 (D MN 7/2/2018)