Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal Holds Denial of Application for Water and Sewer Category Change Did Not Constitute Least Restrictive Means of Furthering County’s Purported Compelling Governmental Interest in Traffic Safety under RLUIPA

This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

Victory Temple was a religious congregation affiliated with the Redeemed Christian Church of God, an evangelical church founded in Nigeria. As the Bowie facility had an occupancy limit of only about 500, Victory Temple sought a larger property on which to locate and build a new church home for its expanding congregation. In February 2018, Victory Temple purchased a second Bowie property at 14403 Mount Oak Road, upon which Victory Temple intended to build a church facility with a seating capacity of up to 2,000 and a parking lot with about 750 spaces. Victory Temple submitted to the County DPIE its application for a water and sewer category change from Category 5 to Category 4. The County Council ultimately adopted the Transportation Committee’s recommendation to deny the Application. Following this, Victory Temple filed its Complaint against the County, alleging that the denial of the Application violated RLUIPA’s substantial burden provision.

The court first noted that, when the County Council and other County entities evaluated the Application, they made individualized assessments of Victory Temple’s proposed uses of the property. The district court ruled that the County’s denial of the Application constituted a substantial burden. Although there was evidence to undermine the County’s position that its denial of the Application was motivated by traffic safety concerns, the court accepted that the County’s asserted interest in traffic safety was the interest the County relied on when it denied the Application. Nevertheless, the County failed to present any trial evidence demonstrating that it considered any less restrictive means before denying the Application. Specifically, the County never sought to show at trial that it considered alternatives, such as roadway improvements or additional road signs, before denying the Application. Accordingly, the court agreed with the district court that the County’s denial of the Application failed strict scrutiny review. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting Victory Temple the injunctive relief that was appealed from.

The Redeemed Christian Church of God (Victory Temple) Bowie, MD v Prince George’s County, 17 F. 4th 479 (11/3/2021)