Fed. Dist. Court of IL Denies Motion to Dismiss RLUIPA Claim that Church was Substantially Burdened in Trying to Comply with City’s Parking Requirements

This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

After leasing for several years, the Immanuel Baptist Church decided to buy the property it was leasing in June 2016. The Church’s lender required a determination from the City confirming the Church could meet the parking requirement at the property, as the City’s zoning ordinance at the time prevented the Church from operating a religious assembly unless it complied with a parking ratio requirement of eight seats to one parking space. Despite contrary assurances the Church received, Assistant Commissioner Patrick Murphey informed the lender that a church could not be established at the property without the required parking. The seller had previously agreed to sell the Church two buildings for $750,000, but by 2018, the seller refused to sell both unless the Church paid an increased amount which it could not afford. As such, the Church was only able to purchase one of the buildings for $407,500. In this case, Immanuel Baptist Church sued the City of Chicago alleging that the City’s parking regulations violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (2000) and denied the Church equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

 The Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), alleged that the Church was burdened by substantial expense, time and resources trying to comply with the City’s parking requirements. Pursuant to the original deal it had with the owner of the subject property, the Church intended to purchase two buildings. However, when it was able to close on the deal two years later, the Church was only able to purchase one building. Additionally, during that delay, the Church spent money paying rent and used significant resources trying to negotiate with the City and identify potential parking solutions. Thus, while the City finally exempted the Church from the parking requirement in 2019, that did not change the fact that the Church had spent significant time, money, and resources over those years, and lost the opportunity for ownership of one of the buildings, which burdened the Church’s religious exercise. Accordingly, after reading the TAC as a whole and taking the factual allegations as true, the court found that it was plausible to infer that the burden on the Church was substantial. Accordingly, the City of Chicago’s motion to dismiss was denied.

Immanuel Baptist Church v City of Chicago, 2020 WL 4053041 (ND IL 7/20/2020)