Fed. Dist. Court in MS Finds County Violated RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision

This post was authored by Damion Jeenarine, Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

Plaintiff, The Church at Jackson motioned for the court to remove the restrictions blocking it from building on its property for a religious assembly. Plaintiff’s motion results from Defendant Hinds County blocking the Church from using the land in an agricultural district. County officials contend religious institutions are permitted in agricultural districts if they obtain a Special Use Permit. However, after applying for the Special Use Permit, the County still did not approve the land use because Churches can promote urban development of the land. The purpose of the zoning restriction is to keep the agricultural district conservative. Nevertheless, the County does allow particular nonreligious assembly uses in its agricultural areas. Conversely, the Church claims that Hind’s County officials are violating the equal terms clause of the Constitution provided in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act ( “RLUIPA”).

Obtaining the injunction requires Plaintiff to satisfy four elements. Specifically, the applicant must show its case can succeed on its face, that there is a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, that the threatened injury outweighs any harm that the injunction might cause to the Defendant and that the injunction will not disserve the public interest.

First, the Court analyzed the Plaintiff’s claim based on RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Clause – prohibiting the government from imposing a facially discriminatory ordinance. Plaintiff argues that the ordinance treats them on less than equal terms than other institutions. Specifically, the Church notes that the ordinance does not require a Special Use Permit for gymnasiums, recreation centers, and amusement parks. The Court found the Equal Terms clause of RLUIPA violated based on the facially discriminatory ordinance. As such, the burden of proof shifted to Defendant. Hind’s County contended that religious institutions are more likely to promote urban development and damage the agricultural district. Nevertheless, the Court declared Hind’s County failed to meet its obligation in its brief because it could not show how religious institutions promoted urban development.

The Court then discussed the second requirement in granting injunctive relief, whether the Church suffered a substantial threat of irreparable harm. The Court held that because the ordinance violates RLUIPA, it infringes on the Plaintiff’s constitutionally held rights.

After ruling on the second element, the court examined whether the injury outweighs any potential harm cast on Defendant. Hind’s County argued it has a legitimate interest to establish classifications for its districts. However, the Court does not entertain the County’s explanation, seemingly because the test here will not rely on a rational basis test. Religion is a suspect class, and therefore the County needs more than legitimate interest.

Finally, the Court held that upholding a Constitutional right is within the public interest. Therefore, the Court granted the injunction to the Church and noted as a matter of law that the ordinance treats religious assemblies on less than equal terms.

The Church at Jackson v. Hinds County, 2021 WL 4344886 (SD MS 9/23/2021)