Roman Catholic Bishop v. City of Springfield, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Roman Catholic Bishop v. City of Springfield, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/49

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 11- 1117

ROMAN CATHOLI C BI SHOP OF SPRI NGFI ELD,a Cor por at i on Sol e,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

CI TY OF SPRI NGFI ELD;

DOMENI C J . SARNO, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Mayor of t he Ci t yof Spr i ngf i el d; SPRI NGFI ELD CI TY COUNCI L; PATRI CK J . MARKEY, i n

hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Ci t y Counci l or f or t he Ci t y ofSpr i ngf i el d; WI LLI AM T. FOLEY, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Ci t yCounci l or f or t he Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d; ROSEMARI E MAZZA- MORI ARTY,

i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as Ci t y Counci l or f or t he Ci t y ofSpr i ngf i el d; TI MOTHY J . ROOKE, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Ci t yCounci l or f or t he Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d; BRUCE W. STEBBI NS, i n hi sof f i ci al capaci t y as Ci t y Counci l or f or t he Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d;J OSE TOSADO, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Ci t y Counci l or f or t heCi t y of Spr i ngf i el d; KATERI WALSH, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y asCi t y Counci l or f or t he Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d; BUD L. WI LLI AMS, i n

hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Ci t y Counci l or f or t he Ci t y ofSpr i ngf i el d; J AMES J . FERRERA, I I I , i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as

Ci t y Counci l or f or t he Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mi chael A. Ponsor , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Sel ya and Howard, Ci r cui t J udges.


2/49

J ohn J . Egan, wi t h whomSt ephen E. Spel man and Egan, Fl anaganand Cohen, P. C. wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Ant hony I . Wi l son, Associ at e Ci t y Sol i ci t or , Ci t y ofSpr i ngf i el d, wi t h whom Edwar d M. Pi kul a, Ci t y Sol i ci t or , Ci t y ofSpr i ngf i el d, was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J ul y 22, 2013


3/49

LYNCH, Chief Judge. The Roman Cat hol i c Bi shop of

Spr i ngf i el d ( RCB) chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y

j udgment t o t he Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d ( Ci t y) and di smi ssal of RCB' s

const i t ut i onal and st at ut or y cl ai ms agai nst enf or cement of a Ci t y

or di nance t hat creat ed a si ngl e- par cel hi st or i c di st r i ct

encompassi ng a church owned by RCB. Under t he or di nance, RCB

cannot make any changes t hat af f ect t he ext er i or of t he chur ch,

i ncl udi ng demol i t i on, wi t hout t he per mi ssi on of t he Spr i ngf i el d

Hi st or i cal Commi ssi on ( SHC) .

RCB cl ai ms t hat t he ordi nance gi ves t he SHC vet o power

over i t s r el i gi ous deci si onmaki ng, and i n doi ng so vi ol at es i t s

Fi r st Amendment r i ght s t o f r ee speech and f r ee exer ci se of

r el i gi on; i t s r i ght s under t he f eder al Rel i gi ous Land Use and

I nst i t ut i onal i zed Per sons Act ( RLUI PA) , 42 U. S. C. 2000cc et seq. ;

and i t s r i ght s under t he Massachuset t s st at e const i t ut i on. The

di st r i ct cour t , on cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y j udgment , f ound t hat

some of RCB' s cl ai ms wer e not r i pe f or r evi ew and t hat i t s

r emai ni ng cl ai ms f ai l ed as a mat t er of l aw. See Roman Cat hol i c

Bi shop of Spr i ngf i el d v. Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d ( RCB) , 760 F. Supp. 2d

172 ( D. Mass. 2011) .

We concl ude t hat onl y a l i mi t ed cl ai m i s now r i pe:

namel y, RCB' s cl ai m based on t he mere enact ment of t he or di nance.

But t hose of RCB' s cl ai ms whi ch depend on t he pot ent i al

consequences of compl i ance wi t h t he ordi nance ar e not r i pe f or

-3-


4/49

adj udi cat i on, because RCB has not yet devi sed i t s pl ans f or t he

chur ch nor submi t t ed any appl i cat i on t o t he SHC. We r each t hi s

concl usi on f or r easons di f f er ent f r om t he di st r i ct cour t ' s. We

r ej ect t he r emai ni ng r i pe cl ai m. We af f i r m i n par t and vacat e i n

par t t he di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summar y j udgment and di smi ss

RCB' s unr i pe cl ai ms wi t hout pr ej udi ce.

I .

The f act s i n t hi s case ar e undi sput ed.

A. Backgr ound

RCB i s a cor por at i on sol e, 1 i ncorporated under t he l aws

of Massachuset t s. I t i s t he l egal ent i t y t hr ough whi ch t he Roman

Cat hol i c Di ocese of Spr i ngf i el d ( "Di ocese" ) oper at es. The Di ocese

cover s f our count i es i n west er n Massachuset t s, i ncl udi ng t he count y

t hat cont ai ns t he Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d.

RCB owns a chur ch i n Spr i ngf i el d known as Our Lady of

Hope ( "Chur ch" ) , whi ch was bui l t i n 1925. I t was desi gned by t he

Spr i ngf i el d ar chi t ect J ohn Donohue i n the I t al i an Renai ssance

st yl e. I n 2001, t he Chur ch was deemed el i gi bl e f or i ncl usi on on

t he Nat i onal Regi st er of Hi st or i c Pl aces, but i t was never so

pl aced. And unt i l t he event s at i ssue i n t hi s case, i t was never

1 A cor por at i on sol e consi st s of onl y one per son at a t i me,but t he corporat i on may pass f r om one per son t o the next wi t houtany i nt er r upt i on i n i t s l egal st at us. Roman Cat hol i c Bi shop ofSpr i ngf i el d v. Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d ( RCB) , 760 F. Supp. 2d 172, 177n. 1 ( D. Mass. 2011) .

-4-


5/49

i ncl uded i n nor pr oposed t o be i ncl uded i n a l ocal hi st or i c

di st r i ct .

I n 2004, RCB began a pr ocess known as " past or al

pl anni ng, " whi ch was desi gned t o det er mi ne how t o al l ocat e the

Di ocese' s f i nanci al and human r esour ces i n t he f ace of decr easi ng

numbers of cl ergy and par i shi oners. The pr ocess was overseen by a

commi t t ee of cl er gy and rel i gi ous and l ay member s of t he Di ocese.

Par t of t he commi t t ee' s dut y was t o seek and i ncorporate t he vi ews

of member s of t he Di ocese out si de t he commi t t ee i t sel f . I n August

2009, t he commi t t ee i ssued i t s f i nal r epor t . The r epor t

r ecommended cl osi ng t he Chur ch and combi ni ng Our Lady of Hope

Par i sh wi t h anot her l ocal par i sh. The Bi shop of t he Di ocese

accept ed t hi s r ecommendat i on, and ser vi ces ceased at t he Chur ch as

of J anuary 1, 2010.

Accor di ng t o Roman Cat hol i c canon l aw, when a church goes

out of ser vi ce f or r el i gi ous wor shi p, t he Bi shop comes under an

obl i gat i on t o pr ot ect t he r el i gi ous or nament at i on i n and on t he

bui l di ng so t hat i t i s not put t o "sordi d" use. 2 RCB i dent i f i es

2 Under canon l aw, a sordi d use i s one t hat i s "det r i ment al t ot he good of soul s, " i ncl udi ng any use t hat i nvol ves " [ t ] hedenunci at i on of t he Cat hol i c Chur ch and t he Cat hol i c Fai t h, t he

desecr at i on of Cat hol i c obj ect s of devot i on and wor shi p or even anydi sr espect f ul or casual t r eat ment of such obj ect s, and/ or t hepr osel yt i zi ng of Cat hol i cs. " See Roman Cat hol i c Ar chbi shop ofBost on, A Cor por at i on Sol e' s Pol i cy on t he Sal e of Chur chBui l di ngs, avai l abl e at ht t p: / / www. bost oncat hol i c. or g/ upl oadedFi l es/ Bost onCat hol i cor g/ Par i shes_And_Peopl e/ Pol i cyonSal eof Chur chBui l di ngs0711. pdf .

-5-


6/49

ei ght t ypes of r el i gi ous ornament at i on on t he ext er i or of t he

Chur ch, i ncl udi ng st one cast i ngs, i nscr i pt i ons, and st ai ned gl ass

wi ndows depi ct i ng r el i gi ous scenes and symbol s. Some of t hese

f eat ur es, such as f r i ezes, ar e bui l t i nt o t he st r uct ur e and ar e not

easi l y r emovabl e. Al l of t hese f eat ur es ar e desi gned t o

communi cat e r el i gi ous messages t o t hose who obser ve t hem.

RCB has est abl i shed pr ocedur es f or deal i ng wi t h r el i gi ous

symbol s when a chur ch has been cl osed f or worshi p. I n order of

pr ef er ence, i t wi l l t r y t o: ( 1) r el ocat e t he i t ems t o ot her

l ocat i ons wi t hi n t he Di ocese; ( 2) r el ocat e t he i t ems t o ot her

di oceses; or ( 3) pl ace t he i t ems i n st or age. I f none of t hese

opt i ons ar e possi bl e, t he obj ect s can be dest r oyed.

When a cl osed chur ch i s sol d or l eased t o a thi r d par t y,

RCB must f i r st conver t t he chur ch f r om r el i gi ous use t o "pr of ane"

( non- sacr ed) use i n a pr ocess known as deconsecrat i on. As part of

t he deconsecr at i on pr ocess, RCB wi l l i ncl ude a cl ause i n t he sal e

or l ease agr eement obl i gat i ng t he pur chaser or l essee ei t her t o

r ef r ai n f r om put t i ng t he pr oper t y t o "sordi d" use or t o al l ow RCB

t o r emove al l r el i gi ous symbol s. I f RCB el ect s t o r emove t he

r el i gi ous symbol s, i t f ol l ows the st eps out l i ned above. However ,

i f t he symbol s are i mpossi bl e or i mpr act i cabl e t o r emove ( f or

i nst ance, a f r i eze) , RCB wi l l cover t hem wi t h concr et e or ot her

mat er i al s. Symbol s t hat cannot be r emoved may al so be dest r oyed - -

-6-


7/49

al ong wi t h t he bui l di ng i t sel f , i f necessar y - - i f RCB det er mi nes

t hat dest r uct i on i s necessary t o avoi d desecr at i on.

B. The Massachuset t s Hi st or i c Di st r i ct s Act ( MHDA)

The MHDA del egat es t o ci t i es and t owns i n Massachuset t s

t he aut hor i t y t o desi gnat e hi st or i c di st r i cts wi t hi n t hei r

boundar i es. The pr ocess of creat i ng hi st or i c di st r i ct s i nvol ves

f i r st creat i ng a hi st or i cal commi ssi on or a hi st or i c di st r i ct st udy

commi t t ee, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40C, 3- 4; Spr i ngf i el d di d t he

f ormer when i t const i t ut ed t he SHC i n t he ear l y 1970s. The SHC

consi st s of seven member s and f our al t er nates, appoi nt ed by the

mayor and subj ect t o conf i r mat i on by the Ci t y Counci l .

Under t he MHDA, a muni ci pal i t y' s hi st or i cal commi ssi on

must i nvest i gat e and r epor t on pr oposed hi st or i c di st r i ct s bef or e

such di st r i ct s can be appr oved by t he muni ci pal i t y. I d. 3. A

pr oposed di st r i ct "may consi st of one or mor e par cel s or l ot s of

l and, or one or mor e bui l di ngs or st r uct ur es on one or mor e par cel s

or l ot s of l and. " I d. I n assessi ng pot ent i al hi stor i c di st r i ct s ,

a commi ssi on i s t o consi der " t he hi st or i c and ar chi t ect ur al val ue

and si gni f i cance of t he si t e, bui l di ng or st r uct ur e, t he gener al

desi gn, ar r angement , t ext ur e, mat er i al and col or of t he f eat ur es

i nvol ved, and t he r el at i on of such f eat ur es t o si mi l ar f eat ur es of

bui l di ngs and st r uct ur es i n t he sur r oundi ng ar ea. " I d. 7.

When t he commi ss i on compl et es a pr el i mi nar y repor t on a

pr oposed di st r i ct , i t t r ansmi t s t he r epor t t o t he muni ci pal i t y' s

-7-


8/49

pl anni ng boar d and t o t he st at e hi st or i cal commi ssi on. I d. 3.

Not l ess t han si xty days l at er , t he muni ci pal commi ssi on must hol d

a publ i c hear i ng on t he r epor t . I d. I f t he commi ssi on appr oves

t he pr oposal f ol l owi ng t he publ i c hear i ng, i t t r ansmi t s a f i nal

r epor t and pr oposed or di nance t o t he ci t y counci l ( or equi val ent

body) . I d. A t wo- t hi r ds vot e of t he ci t y counci l i s r equi r ed t o

appr ove t he di str i ct . I d.

Once a hi st or i c di st r i ct i s appr oved, "no bui l di ng or

st r uctur e wi t hi n [ t he] di st r i ct shal l be const r ucted or al t er ed i n

any way t hat af f ect s ext er i or ar chi t ect ur al f eat ur es" unl ess t he

hi st or i cal commi ssi on f i r st i ssues a cer t i f i cat e of

appr opr i at eness, a cer t i f i cat e of nonappl i cabi l i t y, or a

cer t i f i cat e of har dshi p. I d. 6. Vi ol at i on of t hi s pr ovi s i on i s

puni shabl e by a f i ne of bet ween ten dol l ar s and f i ve hundr ed

dol l ar s per day of vi ol at i on. 3 I d. 13. The st at ut e def i nes

"al t er ed" as "i ncl ud[ i ng] t he wor ds ' r ebui l t ' , ' r econst r ucted' ,

' r est or ed' , ' r emoved' and ' demol i shed, ' " and t he wor d "const r uct ed"

as " i ncl ud[ i ng] t he wor ds ' bui l t ' , ' er ect ed' , ' i nstal l ed' ,

' enl ar ged' , and ' moved. ' " I d. 5.

I n or der t o obt ai n a cer t i f i cat e of appr opr i at eness,

har dshi p, or nonappl i cabi l i t y, a pr oper t y owner must f i l e wi t h t he

3 We see no support i n t he st at ut e f or RCB' s cont ent i on t hatt hi s pr ovi si on creat es a cr i mi nal penal t y. Rat her , t he st at ut especi f i es t hat enf orcement of t he MHDA i s commi t t ed t o a cour tsi t t i ng i n equi t y. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40C, 13.

-8-


9/49

commi ssi on an appl i cat i on al ong wi t h "such pl ans, el evat i ons,

speci f i cat i ons, mat er i al and ot her i nf or mat i on . . . as may be

r easonabl y deemed necessary by t he commi ss i on t o enabl e i t t o make

a det er mi nat i on on t he appl i cat i on. " 4 I d. 6. The SHC makes an

appl i cat i on f or t hese cer t i f i cat es, al ong wi t h a l i st of i t s ot her

r equi r ement s, avai l abl e on t he Ci t y' s websi t e. The SHC hol ds

publ i c hear i ngs on submi t t ed appl i cat i ons, unl ess al l par t i es

ent i t l ed t o not i ce wai ve t he hear i ng.

C. The Or di nance

The news t hat t he past or al pl anni ng process woul d r esul t

i n t he cl osi ng of t he Chur ch pr ovoked si gni f i cant adver se r eact i on

4 The cer t i f i cat e most l i kel y appl i cabl e t o t hi s case woul d bea cer t i f i cat e of har dshi p, t he i ssuance of whi ch depends on acommi ssi on det er mi ni ng whet her , "owi ng to condi t i ons especi al l yaf f ect i ng t he bui l di ng or st r uct ur e i nvol ved, but not af f ect i ng t hehi st or i c di st r i ct gener al l y, f ai l ur e t o appr ove an appl i cat i on wi l l

i nvol ve a subst ant i al har dshi p, f i nanci al or ot her wi se, t o t heappl i cant and whether such appl i cat i on may be appr oved wi t houtsubst ant i al det r i ment t o t he publ i c wel f ar e and wi t hout subst ant i alder ogat i on f r om t he i nt ent and pur poses of t hi s chapt er . " Mass.Gen. Laws ch. 40C, 10( c) . I f t he commi ssi on makes such af i ndi ng, i t "shal l " i ssue a cer t i f i cat e of har dshi p. I d. I ncont r ast , a commi ssi on "shal l " i ssue a cer t i f i cat e ofappr opr i at eness when i t det er mi nes " t hat [ t he pr oposed]const r ucti on or al t er at i on . . . wi l l be appr opr i at e f or orcompat i bl e wi t h t he pr eser vat i on or pr ot ect i on of t he hi st or i cdi str i ct , " i d. 10( a) , or a cer t i f i cat e of nonappl i cabi l i t y wheni t det er mi nes t hat t he pr oposed al t er at i on "does not i nvol ve any

ext er i or ar chi t ect ur al f eat ur e, or i nvol ves an ext er i orar chi t ect ur al f eat ur e whi ch i s not t hen subj ect t o r evi ew by t hecommi ssi on, " i d. 10( b) .

For ease, t he r emai nder of t hi s opi ni on wi l l r ef er t o apot ent i al cer t i f i cat e of har dshi p, wi t hout i nt endi ng t o excl ude t hepossi bi l i t y that RCB mi ght have appl i ed f or one of t he t wo ot hert ypes of cer t i f i cat es.

-9-


10/49

among many Our Lady of Hope par i shi oner s. The par i sh was one of

t he t wo l ar gest par i shes sl at ed f or cl osi ng i n Spr i ngf i el d, and

par i shi oner s wer e unhappy wi t h t he pr ospect of bei ng mer ged i nt o

anot her par i sh. I n t he f al l of 2009, a number of Our Lady of Hope

par i shi oner s and ot her l ocal ci t i zens began l obbyi ng t he Ci t y t o

desi gnat e t he Chur ch as a hi st or i c di st r i ct . A member of t he st at e

House of Repr esent at i ves f r om Spr i ngf i el d, Sean Cur r an, wr ot e t o

t he SHC about t he mat t er , st at i ng t hat " t he cl osi ng of t he chur ch

i s a t r emendous bl ow t o t he [ Our Lady of Hope] par i sh, but j ust as

al ar mi ng i s t he l oss of t he chur ch as an ar chi t ect ur al j ewel . " He

ur ged t he SHC t o begi n t he hi st or i c di st r i ct pr ocess "swi f t l y and

wi t hout bur eaucrat i c del ay" i n or der t o "save t hi s beaut i f ul

bui l di ng f r om t he wr ecki ng bal l . " Cur r an appear ed bef or e t he SHC

at a publ i c meet i ng on Sept ember 3, 2009, where he made t he same

r equest . At t hat t i me, t he SHC vot ed unani mousl y t o under t ake a

pr el i mi nar y r epor t on creat i ng a new hi st or i c di st r i ct t hat woul d

i ncl ude t he Chur ch.

The SHC produced i t s prel i mi nary r epor t on Sept ember 17,

2009 - - j ust t wo weeks af t er t he i ni t i al meet i ng - - out l i ni ng a

pr oposal f or t he Our Lady of Hope Hi st or i c Di st r i ct ( "Di st r i ct ") .

The proposal expl ai ned t he hi st or i cal and ar chi t ect ural r easons f or

cr eat i ng t he Di str i ct . Si gni f i cant l y, i t al so stat ed anot her

r eason ani mat i ng t he pr oposal : t he SHC not ed t hat t he Chur ch was

"sl at ed t o be cl osed" ; t hat anot her Roman Cat hol i c chur ch i n

-10-


11/49

Spr i ngf i el d had r ecent l y been cl osed, sol d, and demol i shed; and

t hat t he Di st r i ct " [ wa] s bei ng pr oposed t o avoi d t he same possi bl e

f at e f or Our Lady of Hope. "

The prel i mi nary r epor t proposed a si ngl e- parcel di st r i ct

cover i ng onl y t he Chur ch and no other proper t y. The r eport

j ust i f i ed t he boundar i es by descr i bi ng t he non- hi st or i cal nat ure of

t he sur r oundi ng pr oper t i es. The pr oposal woul d cr eat e t he f i r st

and, at t he t i me, onl y5 si ngl e- parcel hi s tor i c di s t r i ct i n

Spr i ngf i el d. Ot her mul t i - par cel hi stor i c di str i ct s i n t he Ci t y at

t he t i me cont ai ned var i ous houses of wor shi p. The Di st r i ct

ul t i mat el y enact ed by the Ci t y Counci l r et ai ned t hese pr oposed

boundar i es.

On Oct ober 19, 2009, t he SHC r ecei ved a l et t er f r om t he

Massachuset t s Hi st or i cal Commi ssi on i n response t o i t s prel i mi nar y

r epor t , gi vi ng an "advi sory r ecommendat i on" i n f avor of t he

Di st r i ct . Act i ng wi t hi n t he st at ut or y si xt y- day wi ndow, t he SHC

hel d a publ i c meet i ng t o di scuss t he pr oposal on December 14, 2009.

RCB' s counsel appear ed at t hi s meet i ng t o obj ect t o t he cr eat i on of

t he Di st r i ct. He ar gued, i nt er al i a, t hat cr eat i ng t he Di st r i ct

woul d i nf r i nge RCB' s const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed r i ght s t o f r ee

speech and f r ee exer ci se of r el i gi on and t hat i t woul d vi ol at e

5 On May 4, 2010, j ust over f our mont hs af t er t he Ci t y passedt he or di nance at i ssue i n t hi s case, i t passed anot her or di nancecreat i ng t he Ci t y' s second si ngl e- par cel hi st or i c di st r i ct, whi chal so covered a church owned by RCB t hat was sl at ed t o be cl osed.

-11-


12/49

RLUI PA. He al so ar gued t hat t he cr eat i on of t he Di st r i ct was

desi gned t o i nt r ude on t he past or al pl anni ng pr ocess at t he behest

of Our Lady of Hope par i shi oners who were angr y at havi ng t hei r

par i sh cl osed. Fi nal l y, RCB' s counsel asked t hat t he SHC at a

mi ni mum seek a l egal opi ni on as t o t he const i t ut i onal i mpl i cat i ons

of appr ovi ng t he Di st r i ct . Despi t e t hese obj ect i ons, and wi t hout

seeki ng l egal advi ce, at t he cl ose of t he meet i ng t he SHC vot ed

unani mousl y to send a f i nal r epor t t o t he Ci t y Counci l .

The Ci t y Counci l i ni t i al l y r ef er r ed t he proposal t o a

Counci l commi t t ee f or st udy. On December 21, 2009, RCB wr ot e t o

each Counci l member , r ei t er at i ng i t s ar gument s agai nst t he adopt i on

of t he Di st r i ct and aski ng t he Counci l t o seek a l egal opi ni on on

t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he Di st r i ct. RCB poi nt ed out t hat i f t he

Chur ch wer e desi gnat ed as a hi st or i c di st r i ct , i t woul d i nhi bi t

f ut ur e sal e of t he pr oper t y, t he pr oceeds of whi ch woul d benef i t

t he mer ged par i sh. Hi st or i c di st r i ct desi gnat i on woul d al so i mpose

on t he Di ocese, and speci f i cal l y on t he mer ged par i sh, t he

cont i nui ng cost s of mai nt enance, i nsur ance, and secur i t y f or t he

Chur ch.

On December 29, 2009, t he Ci t y Counci l hel d a publ i c

meet i ng on the pr oposal , even though i t had not r ecei ved a r esponse

f r om i t s st udy commi t t ee. RCB' s counsel at t ended t he meet i ng and

agai n obj ect ed t o t he creat i on of t he Di st r i ct . Dur i ng t he

meet i ng, one counci l or cal l ed i n t he ci t y sol i ci t or and asked

-12-


13/49

whet her t he Ci t y' s l aw depart ment had r evi ewed t he pr oposal . The

sol i ci t or sai d i t had not and of f er ed t o di scuss t he pr oposal wi t h

t he Counci l i n execut i ve sessi on, but t he Counci l decl i ned. Al so

dur i ng t hi s meet i ng, another counci l or asked RCB' s counsel why

par i shi oner s had not had an oppor t uni t y t o par t i ci pat e i n t he

deci si on of whether t o cl ose t he Chur ch. When RCB' s counsel

answer ed t hat t hey had, t he counci l or excl ai med, "That i sn' t t r ue! "

I n f act , members of t he Di ocese, whi ch i ncl uded Our Lady of Hope

par i shi oner s, had been i nvi t ed t o par t i ci pat e i n t he past or al

pl anni ng pr ocess.

At t he cl ose of t he meet i ng, t he Counci l passed t he

or di nance creat i ng t he Di st r i ct ( "Or di nance") . RCB sent a wr i t t en

pr otest t o t he Ci t y' s mayor , but t he mayor si gned t he Or di nance

i nt o l aw t he next day. The Or di nance went i nt o ef f ect on J anuar y

20, 2010, appr oxi mat el y t hr ee weeks af t er t he l ast servi ces wer e

hel d at t he Chur ch.

Si nce t he enact ment of t he Or di nance, RCB has t aken no

act i on wi t h r egar d t o t he deconsecrat i on, sal e, or l easi ng of t he

Chur ch, and i t has not made any submi ss i ons t o t he SHC seeki ng

per mi ssi on t o al t er t he Chur ch' s ext er i or . As we expl ai n, as a

r esul t of RCB' s f ai l ur e t o t ake f ur t her act i ons wi t h r egar d t o t he

Chur ch si t e, cer t ai n of i t s cl ai ms l ack t he r equi si t e concret eness

t o war r ant r esol ut i on of whet her hypot het i cal out comes t r ansgr ess

RLUI PA or ei t her t he f eder al or st at e const i t ut i ons.

-13-


14/49

I I .

RCB f i l ed i t s compl ai nt agai nst t he Ci t y i n Massachuset t s

Super i or Cour t on J anuary 21, 2010, t he day af t er t he Or di nance

went i nt o ef f ect. I t asser t ed f eder al const i t ut i onal cl ai ms under

42 U. S. C. 1983, f eder al st at ut or y cl ai ms under RLUI PA, and st at e

l aw cl ai ms under t he Massachuset t s Const i t ut i on and t he

Massachuset t s Ci vi l Ri ght s Act , Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, 11I . 6

RCB sought , i nt er al i a, t empor ar y and per manent i nj unct i ons

r est r ai ni ng t he Ci t y f r om enf or ci ng t he Or di nance, a decl ar at i on

t hat t he Or di nance was voi d, and at t or neys' f ees and cost s. The

Ci t y r emoved t he case t o t he U. S. Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct

of Massachuset t s on Febr uar y 5, 2010. RCB moved f or summar y

j udgment on J ul y 9, 2010, and t he Ci t y cr oss- moved f or summar y

j udgment on August 13, 2010.

On J anuar y 2, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued i t s

Memor andum and Or der grant i ng summar y j udgment t o the Ci t y. RCB,

760 F. Supp. 2d at 176. The cour t f i r st f ound t hat cer t ai n of

RCB' s cl ai ms wer e not r i pe f or adj udi cat i on. To make t hi s

det er mi nat i on, t he cour t r echar act er i zed t he compl ai nt by di vi di ng

RCB' s al l egat i ons "i nt o t wo t empor al f acet s: ( 1) vi ol at i ons t hat

6 The compl ai nt al so named as def endant s t he mayor and t hemember s of t he Ci t y Counci l i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es. Thedi st r i ct cour t di smi ssed t he cl ai ms agai nst t he i ndi vi dualdef endant s on t he basi s t hat t hey wer e act ual l y cl ai ms agai nst t heCi t y. RCB, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 184. RCB does not chal l enge t hi sdeci si on on appeal .

-14-


15/49

ar i se f r om t he mer e enact ment of t he si ngl e- par cel hi st or i c

di s t r i ct , . . . and ( 2) vi ol at i ons that ar i se f rom [ RCB] ' s

r esul t i ng i nabi l i t y t o deconsecrat e chur ch pr oper t y. " I d. at 181.

The cour t concl uded t hat cl ai ms f al l i ng under t he f i r st headi ng

were r i pe f or r evi ew because t he Or di nance f orced RCB t o submi t t o

a secul ar aut hor i t y and subj ect ed i t t o t he "del ay, uncer t ai nt y and

expense" of t he appr oval pr ocess. I d. at 181- 82. On t he ot her

hand, i t f ound t hat cl ai ms f al l i ng under t he second headi ng wer e

not r i pe because RCB had not act ual l y appl i ed t o t he SHC t o make

any changes t o t he Chur ch, so i t was unknown whet her RCB woul d be

al l owed t o make t he changes i t desi r ed. I d. at 182- 84.

As t o t he mer i t s of t he r emai ni ng f eder al cl ai ms, t he

cour t f ound, i nt er al i a, t hat t he bur den t he Or di nance i mposed on

RCB was not "subst ant i al " under RLUI PA, i d. at 185- 88, and t hat t he

Or di nance di d not vi ol at e t he ant i di scr i mi nat i on pr ovi si ons of

RLUI PA, i d. at 188- 91. I t t hen er r oneousl y f ocused on t he MHDA

r ather t han t he Or di nance, 7 and i t f ound t hat t he MHDA was a

7 The di st r i ct cour t i nt er pr et ed RCB' s cl ai ms as a chal l enget o the MHDA as appl i ed t hr ough t he Or di nance, r at her t han as achal l enge t o t he Or di nance i t sel f . RCB, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 181n. 6, 190, 192- 93. Thi s was t he wr ong f ocus. The MHDA del egat es t omuni ci pal i t i es the aut hor i t y t o creat e hi st or i c di st r i cts usi ngcer t ai n t ypes of pr ocedur es and gener al cr i t er i a. See Mass. Gen.

Laws ch. 40C, 3- 4, 7. When a muni ci pal i t y passes an ordi nancecr eat i ng a hi stor i c di st r i ct , i t i s exer ci s i ng i t s consi der abl edi scret i on under t hi s del egat ed aut hor i t y; i t i s not "codi f [ yi ng]t he Ci t y' s det er mi nat i on t hat t he [ MHDA] appl i es t o" t he subj ectpr oper t i es. RCB, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 181 n. 6. I n t hi s opi ni on weanal yze RCB' s cl ai ms as chal l enges t o t he Or di nance i t sel f , not t ot he MHDA.

-15-


16/49

neut r al l aw of gener al appl i cabi l i t y; t her ef or e, under Empl oyment

Di vi si on, Depar t ment of Human Resour ces of Or egon v. Smi t h, 494

U. S. 872 ( 1990) , t he st at ut e' s i nci dent al Fi r st Amendment bur den on

RCB was const i t ut i onal l y accept abl e, see RCB, 760 F. Supp. 2d at

191- 93. The cour t al so f ound t hat RCB' s cl ai m under t he

Massachuset t s Const i t ut i on f ai l ed f or t he same r easons as di d i t s

cl ai m under t he "subst ant i al bur den" provi si on of RLUI PA. 8 I d. at

195.

RCB t i mel y appeal ed on J anuar y 28, 2011. 9

I I I .

We revi ew a grant of summar y j udgment de novo, drawi ng

al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he non- movi ng par t y.

Kuperman v. Wr enn, 645 F. 3d 69, 73 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . On an appeal

f r om cr oss- mot i ons f or summary j udgment , t he st andard does not

change; we vi ew each mot i on separat el y and dr aw al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences i n f avor of t he r espect i ve non- movi ng par t y. See

OneBeacon Am. I ns. Co. v. Commerci al Uni on Assur ance Co. of Can. ,

684 F. 3d 237, 241 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Nei t her par t y cont ends t hat

8 The di st r i ct cour t al so br i ef l y di scussed, and r ej ect ed,RCB' s ar gument s under t he f eder al Est abl i shment Cl ause, t heFour t eent h Amendment Due Process Cl ause, t he Four t eent h Amendment

Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause, and t he Massachuset t s Ci vi l Ri ght s Act .See RCB, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 193- 95. RCB does not press any oft hese argument s on appeal , and we do not address t hem.

9 Appel l at e br i ef i ng was st ayed f or over a year and a hal f ast he par t i es at t empt ed, unsuccessf ul l y, t o r esol ve t hei r di sput es i nmedi at i on.

-16-


17/49

t her e ar e any genui ne i ssues of mat er i al f act t hat woul d j ust i f y

r emand f or a t r i al .

We must begi n wi t h the Ci t y' s ar gument t hat RCB' s cl ai ms

ar e not r i pe f or r evi ew, si nce t he r i peness i nqui r y i nvol ves, as

one component , t he quest i on of whet her t hi s cour t has j ur i sdi ct i on

t o hear t he case. See Si ndi cat o Puer t or r i queo de Trabaj ador es,

SEI U Local 1996 v. For t uo, 699 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( per

cur i am) .

"[ T] he doct r i ne of r i peness has r oot s i n bot h t he Ar t i cl e

I I I case or cont r over sy requi r ement and i n pr udent i al

consi der at i ons. " Mangual v. Rot ger Sabat , 317 F. 3d 45, 59 ( 1st

Ci r . 2003) . The "basi c r at i onal e" of t he r i peness i nqui r y i s "t o

pr event t he cour t s, t hr ough avoi dance of pr emat ur e adj udi cat i on,

f r om ent angl i ng t hemsel ves i n abst r act di sagr eement s. " Abbot t

Labs. v. Gardner , 387 U. S. 136, 148 ( 1967) , abr ogated on ot her

gr ounds by Cal i f ano v. Sander s, 430 U. S. 99 (1977) .

Ther e ar e t wo f act or s t o consi der i n deter mi ni ng

r i peness: "t he f i t ness of t he i ssues f or j udi ci al deci si on and t he

har dshi p t o t he par t i es of wi t hhol di ng cour t consi der at i on. " I d.

at 149. We gener al l y r equi r e bot h pr ongs t o be sat i sf i ed i n or der

f or a cl ai m t o be consi der ed r i pe. Er nst & Young v. Deposi t or s

Econ. Pr ot . Cor p. , 45 F. 3d 530, 535 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) .

The f i t ness prong of t he r i peness t est has bot h

j ur i sdi ct i onal and pr udent i al components. The f or mer , "grounded i n

-17-


18/49

t he pr ohi bi t i on agai nst advi sor y opi ni ons, i s one of t i mi ng. "

Si ndi cat o Puer t or r i queo, 699 F. 3d at 8 ( quot i ng Mangual , 317 F. 3d

at 59) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . I t concer ns whet her

t her e i s a suf f i ci ent l y l i ve case or cont r over sy, at t he t i me of

t he pr oceedi ngs, t o creat e j ur i sdi ct i on i n t he f eder al cour t s. See

i d. The pr udent i al component asks "whet her r esol ut i on of t he

di sput e shoul d be post poned i n t he name of ' j udi ci al r est r ai nt f r om

unnecessar y deci si on of const i t ut i onal i ssues' ; i f el ement s of t he

case ar e uncer t ai n, del ay may see t he di ssi pat i on of t he l egal

di sput e wi t hout need f or deci si on. " Mangual , 317 F. 3d at 59

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Reg' l Rai l Reor g. Act Cases, 419 U. S.

102, 138 ( 1974) ) ; see al so Er nst & Young, 45 F. 3d at 535 ( "Thi s

[ f i t ness] br anch of t he t est t ypi cal l y i nvol ves subsi di ar y quer i es

concer ni ng f i nal i t y, def i ni t eness, and t he ext ent t o whi ch

r esol ut i on of t he chal l enge depends upon f act s t hat may not yet be

suf f i ci ent l y devel oped. ") .

The hardshi p prong, by cont r ast , i s "whol l y prudent i al . "

Mangual , 317 F. 3d at 59. I t l ooks at "whet her t he chal l enged

act i on cr eat es a di r ect and i mmedi at e di l emma f or t he par t i es. "

Si ndi cat o Puer t or r i queo, 699 F. 3d at 9 ( quot i ng Ver i zon New Eng. ,

I nc. v. I nt ' l Bhd. of El ec. Wor ker s, Local No. 2322, 651 F. 3d 176,

188 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

"Gener al l y, a ' mer e possi bi l i t y of f ut ur e i nj ur y, unl ess i t i s t he

-18-


19/49

cause of some pr esent det r i ment , does not const i t ut e har dshi p. ' "

I d. ( quot i ng Si mmonds v. I NS, 326 F. 3d 351, 360 ( 2d Ci r . 2003) ) . 10

The Ci t y ar gues t hat , because RCB has never submi t t ed an

appl i cat i on f or a cer t i f i cat e of har dshi p, RCB cannot pr esent any

r i pe cl ai ms based on t he f act t hat t he SHC mi ght pr event RCB f r om

i mpl ement i ng i t s r el i gi ous pr ot ocol s as t o symbol s on t he ext er i or

of t he Chur ch. RCB r esponds t hat t he i ssues i n t hi s case ar e

pur el y l egal r at her t han f act ual , so no f ur t her devel opment s - -

i ncl udi ng any devel opment s t hat woul d r esul t f r om submi t t i ng an

10 Si gni f i cant l y, t hi s cour t has r ecogni zed i n t he f r ee speechcont ext t hat r i peness i n Fi r st Amendment cases i s subj ect t opar t i cul ar r ul es sensi t i ve t o t he nat ur e of t he r i ght s at i ssue.See Si ndi cato Puer t orr i queo de Trabaj adores, SEI U Local 1996 v.For t uo, 699 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( not i ng " t he pot ent i al f or' i r r et r i evabl e l oss' of t en i nvol ved i n cases wher e Fi r st Amendmentr i ght s ar e at st ake" ( quot i ng Sul l i van v. Ci t y of August a, 511 F. 3d16, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) ) ; see al so 13B Wr i ght & Mi l l er , Feder alPract i ce & Procedur e 3532. 1. 1 ( "Fi r st Amendment chal l enges t o

l and use regul at i on ar e l i kel y t o be gover ned by t he gener al - - andsomewhat r el axed - - r i peness t est s t hat appl y t o Fi r st Amendmentcl ai ms i n ot her cont exts. " ) . Some cour t s have decl i ned t o appl yt hi s more rel axed st andard t o cases i nvol vi ng Fi r st Amendment ( andRLUI PA) cl ai ms ar i si ng f r om l ocal l and use di sput es. See, e. g. ,Gr ace Cmt y. Chur ch v. Lenox Twp. , 544 F. 3d 609, 615 (6t h Ci r .2008) ; Murphy v. New Mi l f or d Zoni ng Comm' n, 402 F. 3d 342, 347- 50( 2d Ci r . 2005) . These cour t s have r eached t hat concl usi on byr el yi ng on Wi l l i amson Count y Regi onal Pl anni ng Commi ssi on v.Hami l t on Bank, 473 U. S. 172 ( 1985) . As we expl ai n i n t he t ext , wedo not bel i eve t hat t he si t uat i on her e r equi r es us t o r each t hequest i on of whet her Wi l l i amson Count y appl i es i n t hi s cont ext .

Thus, we do not r esol ve t oday t he quest i on of whether r el axed Fi r stAmendment r i peness st andards appl y gener al l y t o cl ai ms pr edi catedon al l eged Free Exer ci se vi ol at i ons, nor do we r esol ve t he quest i onof whether ( and t o what ext ent ) Wi l l i amson Count y may appl y t o suchcl ai ms. I nst ead we concl ude t hat , under gener al pr i nci pl es ofpr udent i al r i peness, cer t ai n of RCB' s cl ai ms ar e not r i pe f orr evi ew.

-19-


20/49

appl i cat i on t o t he SHC - - woul d al t er t he out come. RCB al so argues

t hat i t f aces t he har dshi p of havi ng t o seek t he SHC' s per mi ssi on

f or ever y f ut ur e change t o t he Chur ch' s ext er i or and t hat any

r equi r ed appl i cat i on f or a cer t i f i cat e of har dshi p woul d be f ut i l e

due to the Ci t y' s demonst r at ed host i l i t y t o the Di ocese' s pl ans f or

t he Chur ch.

As t o t he f i r st component of t he f i t ness quest i on, we

concl ude t hat one aspect of RCB' s compl ai nt sat i sf i es Ar t i cl e I I I ' s

case or cont r over sy r equi r ement : speci f i cal l y, RCB' s cl ai mt hat t he

enact ment of t he Or di nance i t sel f bur dens RCB' s r el i gi ous pr act i ces

and under mi nes i t s r el i gi ous f r eedom. Ther e i s no doubt t hat t he

Ci t y i nt ends t o enf orce t he Or di nance agai nst RCB and that RCB must

submi t sever al cat egor i es of i t s deci si onmaki ng, ot her wi se gover ned

by r el i gi ous doct r i ne, t o t he SHC. RCB has al r eady pr ot est ed t o

t he Ci t y r egar di ng t he pr act i cal ef f ect s of t hese f act s on i t s

owner shi p and pot ent i al di sposi t i on of Chur ch pr oper t y, i ncl udi ng

f i nanci al bur dens. Under t hese ci r cumst ances, t her e i s a l i ve

cont r over sy bet ween t he part i es.

But t he pr udent i al component of t he f i t ness pr ong, as

wel l as t he ent i r el y pr udent i al har dshi p pr ong, pr esent much cl oser

quest i ons as t o the aspect s of RCB' s cl ai mconcer ni ng t he pot ent i al

f ut ur e r esul t s of t he appl i cat i on pr ocess. We do not agr ee wi t h

RCB t hat t her e are no f ur t her f act ual devel opment s t hat coul d be

r el evant t o t he out come of t hi s case. I ndeed, bot h t he di st r i ct

-20-


21/49

cour t and the Ci t y have emphasi zed a key mi ss i ng f act : RCB di d not

put i n t he r ecor d any speci f i c pl an f or t he sal e and/ or

deconsecr at i on of t he Chur ch. Nor does t he r ecor d i ndi cat e t hat

RCB made any such pr oposal t o t he Ci t y ( vi a t he Counci l or t he SHC)

bef or e f i l i ng t he i nst ant l awsui t . Not hi ng has yet been pr esent ed

t o t he SHC. I nst ead, RCB f i l ed t hi s l awsui t t he ver y next day

af t er t he Or di nance went i nt o ef f ect . As such, t he Ci t y has had no

oppor t uni t y t o demonst r at e whether or not i t wi l l accommodat e some,

al l , or none of RCB' s r equest s f or changes t o the ext er i or of t he

Chur ch. I ndeed, RCB has not set t l ed upon any pl an f or f ut ur e use

of t he pr oper t y t hat woul d necessar i l y ent ai l changes t o t he

Chur ch' s ext er i or . Wi t hout knowi ng what RCB can or cannot do wi t h

t he Chur ch under t he Or di nance, we cannot know t o what ext ent , i f

any, RCB wi l l suf f er f r om a bur den on i t s r el i gi ous pr act i ce.

Thi s uncer t ai nt y l i kewi se cast s doubt on RCB' s ar gument

t hat any appl i cat i on t o t he SHC woul d be f ut i l e. The Ci t y has made

i t cl ear , bot h i n t he pr oceedi ngs l eadi ng t o passage of t he

Or di nance and t hr oughout t hi s l awsui t , t hat i t s pur pose i n passi ng

t he Or di nance was to pr event demol i t i on of t he Chur ch. I f RCB had

pr of f er ed evi dence t hat i t i n f act pl anned t o demol i sh t he Chur ch,

i n accor dance wi t h t he r equi r ement s of i t s deconsecr at i on

pr ocedur es, t hen RCB may have been abl e t o make t he f ut i l i t y

argument . See Gi l ber t v. Ci t y of Cambr i dge, 932 F. 2d 51, 61 ( 1st

Ci r . 1991) ( st at i ng, i n zoni ng cont ext , t hat f ut i l i t y may be

-21-


22/49

suf f i ci ent t o show r i peness wher e t he pl ai nt i f f f aces "a sor t of

i nevi t abi l i t y . . . : t he pr ospect of r ef usal [ of an appl i cat i on]

must be cer t ai n ( or near l y so) , " not mer el y possi bl e or even

pr obabl e) . But t he Ci t y has not r epr esent ed t hat i t woul d deny al l

appl i cat i ons t o al t er t he ext er i or of t he Chur ch i n any way, and

RCB has not of f er ed evi dence t o suggest t hat t he Ci t y woul d deny

al l such appl i cat i ons. Gi ven t hi s uncer t ai nt y, we cannot concl ude

t hat RCB' s cl ai ms pr emi sed on i t s f ear ed i nabi l i t y to deconsecr at e

t he Chur ch accor di ng t o i t s r el i gi ous pr i nci pl es, as a r esul t of

f ut ur e SHC deci si ons, ar e now f i t f or adj udi cat i on. 11

I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, we r el y on t r adi t i onal

not i ons of r i peness. We do not r el y, as di d t he di st r i ct cour t , on

speci al i zed Taki ngs Cl ause r i peness doct r i ne. I n r egul at or y

t aki ngs cases, a pr oper t y owner must f ol l ow t he pr ocedur es f or

r equest i ng t he appl i cabl e zoni ng r el i ef , and have i t s r equest

deni ed, bef or e br i ngi ng a cl ai m i n cour t . Wi l l i amson Cnt y. Reg' l

Pl anni ng Comm' n v. Hami l t on Bank, 473 U. S. 172, 190- 91 ( 1985) . But

t he Supr eme Cour t has st ated t hat t hi s r equi r ement " i s compel l ed by

t he ver y nat ur e of t he i nqui r y requi r ed by t he J ust Compensat i on

11 Because we concl ude t hat RCB' s cl ai ms based on i t s possi bl e

pr ospect i ve i nabi l i t y t o deconsecrat e t he Chur ch f ai l t hepr udent i al component of t he r i peness t est , we need not addr esswhet her t hose cl ai ms woul d sat i sf y the const i t ut i onal component .See Lyng v. Nw. I ndi an Cemet er y Pr ot ect i ve Ass' n, 485 U. S. 439, 445( 1988) ( "A f undament al and l ongst andi ng pr i nci pl e of j udi ci alr est r ai nt r equi r es t hat cour t s avoi d r eachi ng const i t ut i onalquest i ons i n advance of t he necessi t y of deci di ng t hem. " ) .

-22-


23/49

Cl ause. " I d. at 190; see 13B Wr i ght & Mi l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce &

Pr ocedur e 3532. 1. 1 ( descr i bi ng t aki ngs cases as compr i si ng " [ a]

speci al cat egor y of r i peness doctr i ne") . Speci f i cal l y, r egul at or y

t aki ngs i nqui r i es f ocus on t he economi c i mpact of a r egul at i on on

t he subj ect pr oper t y, and t hat i mpact i s onl y appar ent once t her e

i s a f i nal zoni ng deci si on. See Wi l l i amson Cnt y. , 473 U. S. at 191.

The r i peness i nqui r y i n t aki ngs cases al so i nvol ves a quest i on of

t he adequacy of al t er nat i ve pr ocedur es t o obt ai n j ust compensat i on.

See Horne v. Dep' t of Agr i c. , 133 S. Ct . 2053, 2062 ( 2013) .

Her e, by cont r ast , t he Or di nance' s ef f ect on RCB' s f r ee

exer ci se r i ght s may wel l become cl ear at a di f f er ent poi nt t han

t hat cont empl at ed by t aki ngs l aw. Whi l e const i t ut i onal chal l enges

t o l and use regul at i ons may i mpl i cat e Wi l l i amson Count y' s r i peness

doct r i ne i n some cases, we f i nd no such necessar y i mpl i cat i on her e.

I t i s si gni f i cant , i n t hi s r espect, t hat t he Or di nance i s desi gned

t o appl y onl y t o t he Chur ch, unl i ke t he neut r al and gener al l y

appl i cabl e zoni ng or envi r onment al ordi nances t hat ar e al most

al ways at i ssue when a r egul at or y t aki ngs cl ai m i s al l eged. 12

12 Li ke us, ot her ci r cui t s have f ound t hat t he Wi l l i amsonCount y anal ysi s i s somet i mes i napposi t e f or non- Taki ngsconst i t ut i onal chal l enges t o l and use deci si ons. See, e. g. ,Dougher t y v. Town of N. Hempst ead Bd. of Zoni ng Appeal s, 282 F. 3d

83, 89- 91 ( 2d Ci r . 2002) ( Fi r st Amendment r et al i at i on cl ai m) ;Nasi er owski Br os. I nv. Co. v. Ci t y of St er l i ng Hei ght s, 949 F. 2d890, 894 ( 6t h Ci r . 1991) ( pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai m) . But seeGr ace Cmt y. Chur ch, 544 F. 3d at 617- 18 (pr ocedur al due pr ocesscl ai ms are except i on t o t he gener al appl i cat i on of Wi l l i amsonCount y) ; Mur phy, 402 F. 3d at 350- 51 (appl yi ng Wi l l i amson Count y t oRLUI PA and Fi r st Amendment f r ee exerci se cl ai ms) .

-23-


24/49

To t he ext ent t hat RCB has ar gued t hat t he mer e exi st ence

of t he Or di nance cr eat es a r i pe cont r over sy, we f i nd t hat i t s

cl ai ms ar e r i pe. Wi t h r egard t o t hi s at t ack on t he enact ment of

t he Or di nance, RCB has credi bl y al l eged t hat t he r equi r ement of

submi t t i ng t o t he SHC' s aut hor i t y pr esent l y i mposes del ay,

uncer t ai nt y, and expense, whi ch i s suf f i ci ent t o show pr esent

i nj ur y. See Opul ent Li f e Chur ch v. Ci t y of Hol l y Spr i ngs, 697 F. 3d

279, 288 ( 5t h Ci r . 2012) ( consi der i ng i nabi l i t y to use pr oper t y as

i nt ended as a f act or i n t he r i peness i nqui r y) . Of cour se, t he

ext ent and si gni f i cance of t hi s al l eged i nj ur y i s a mer i t s

quest i on. For t he pur poses of t he r i peness i nqui r y, i t i s enough

t o not e t hat i t i s sel f - evi dent l y pl ausi bl e t hat t hey exi st .

RCB al so ar gues t hat t he r equi r ement of subj ect i ng i t s

r el i gi ous deci si ons r egar di ng deconsecrat i on t o secul ar

admi ni st r at or s at al l creat es a pr esent bur den on i t s f r ee exer ci se

of r el i gi on. Cf . Met r o. Wash. Ai r por t s Aut h. v. Ci t i zens f or

Abat ement of Ai r cr af t Noi se, I nc. , 501 U. S. 252, 265 n. 13 ( 1991)

( concl udi ng t hat const i t ut i onal separ at i onof - power s chal l enge t o

"vet o power " of admi ni st r at i ve boar d was r i pe "even i f t he vet o

power has not been exer ci sed t o r espondent s' det r i ment , " because

" [ t ] he thr eat of t he vet o hangs over t he [ deci si onmaker s subj ect t o

t he vet o power ] l i ke t he sword over Damocl es, cr eat i ng a

' her e- and- now subser vi ence' . . . suf f i ci ent t o r ai se

const i t ut i onal quest i ons") . Fi nal l y, RCB poi nt s out t hat i f i t

-24-


25/49

were to make any changes t o t he ext er i or of t he Chur ch wi t hout t he

SHC' s per mi ssi on, i t woul d be subj ect t o a st at ut or y f i ne f or each

day t he changes persi st ed. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40C, 13.

Under t hese ci r cumst ances, we concl ude t hat RCB' s

chal l enges t o the enact ment of t he Or di nance sat i sf y t he pr udent i al

f i t ness and har dshi p r equi r ement s of t he r i peness t est . Because

t hese chal l enges r est sol el y on t he exi st ence of t he Or di nance, no

f ur t her f act ual devel opment i s necessar y, and t he Or di nance' s

exi st ence does conf r ont RCB wi t h a "di r ect and i mmedi at e di l emma. "

Si ndi cat o Puer t or r i queo, 699 F. 3d at 9 ( quot i ng Ver i zon New Eng. ,

651 F. 3d at 188) .

I V.

We t ur n t o the mer i t s of t he r i pe cl ai m, begi nni ng wi t h

RCB' s RLUI PA argument s.

A. RLUI PA "Subst ant i al Bur den"

RCB f i r st ar gues t hat t he Or di nance vi ol at es RLUI PA' s

"subst ant i al bur den" pr ovi si on, 42 U. S. C. 2000cc( a) , whi ch

states:

No gover nment shal l i mpose or i mpl ement a l anduse r egul at i on i n a manner t hat i mposes asubst ant i al bur den on t he r el i gi ous exer ci seof a per son, i ncl udi ng a r el i gi ous assembl y ori nst i t ut i on, unl ess t he gover nment

demonst r ates t hat i mposi t i on of t he bur den ont hat per son, assembl y, or i nst i t ut i on- -( A) i s i n f ur t her ance of a compel l i ng

gover nment al i nt er est ; and( B) i s t he l east r est r i ct i ve means of

f ur t her i ng t hat compel l i ng gover nment ali nt er est.

-25-


26/49

42 U. S. C. 2000cc( a) ( 1) . The par t i es do not di sput e t hat t he

Or di nance i s a "l and use regul at i on" wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he

st atut e. RCB, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 186.

RLUI PA def i nes " r el i gi ous exer ci se" as "any exer ci se of

r el i gi on, whet her or not compel l ed by, or cent r al t o, a syst em of

r el i gi ous bel i ef , " 42 U. S. C. 2000cc- 5( 7) ( A) , and i t speci f i cal l y

pr ovi des t hat "[ t ] he use, bui l di ng, or conver si on of r eal pr oper t y

f or t he pur pose of r el i gi ous exer ci se shal l be consi der ed t o be

r el i gi ous exer ci se, " i d. 2000cc- 5( 7) ( B) . The di st r i ct cour t

cor r ect l y det er mi ned t hat deconsecrat i on const i t ut es r el i gi ous

exer ci se under t he st at ut e. RCB, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 186. The Ci t y

concedes t hat poi nt f or pur poses of t hi s appeal .

1. St andar d of Revi ew

The Supreme Cour t has not deci ded whether a di st r i ct

cour t ' s ul t i mat e concl usi on as t o the exi st ence of a subst ant i al

bur den under RLUI PA i s an i ssue of f act or l aw, nor t he appel l at e

st andar d of r evi ew f or t hi s i ssue. Nor have t he ci r cui t cour t s

answer ed t he quest i on. See, e. g. , Wor l d Out r each Conf er ence Ct r .

v. Ci t y of Chi cago, 591 F. 3d 531, 539 ( 7t h Ci r . 2009) . Of cour se,

i f a di st r i ct cour t had made subsi di ar y f i ndi ngs r esol vi ng di sput ed

i ssues of f act , t hose f i ndi ngs woul d be subj ect t o cl ear er r or

r evi ew. But because t hi s case was resol ved on summary j udgment ,

t hat si t uat i on i s not bef or e us.

-26-


27/49

Rat her , i n the ci r cumst ances present ed her e - - wher e

t her e ar e no cont est ed f i ndi ngs of f act , and wher e nei t her par t y

ar gues t hat t her e ar e mat er i al i ssues of f act f or t r i al - - we vi ew

t he quest i on of whet her a "subst ant i al bur den" exi st s as a quest i on

of l aw subj ect t o de novo r evi ew. Among t he r easons f or our

appr oach ar e t wo consi der at i ons.

Fi r st , t he cor ol l ar y quest i on of whet her t he gover nment ' s

i nt er est i s compel l i ng i s gener al l y t r eat ed as a quest i on of l aw.

See, e. g. , McRae v. J ohnson, 261 F. App' x 554, 557 ( 4t h Ci r . 2008)

( per cur i am) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Hardman, 297 F. 3d 1116, 1127 (10t h

Ci r . 2002) ( i nt er pr et i ng anal ogous RFRA pr ovi si on) .

Second, i n cases r ai si ng chal l enges under t he Fr ee Speech

Cl ause of t he Fi r st Amendment , we have st at ed that an appel l ate

cour t "must conduct an ' i ndependent r evi ew of t he evi dence on t he

di sposi t i ve const i t ut i onal i ssue' . . . i n or der t o saf eguar d

pr eci ous Fi r st Amendment l i ber t i es. " Vei l l eux v. Nat ' l Br oad. Co. ,

206 F. 3d 92, 106 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Bose Corp. v. Consumer s

Uni on of U. S. , I nc. , 466 U. S. 485, 508 ( 1984) ) ; see AI DS Act i on

Comm. of Mass. , I nc. v. Mass. Bay Tr ansp. Aut h. , 42 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st

Ci r . 1994) ( "[ W] her e t he t r i al cour t i s cal l ed upon t o r esol ve a

number of mi xed f act / l aw mat t er s whi ch i mpl i cate core Fi r st

Amendment concerns, our r evi ew, at l east on t hese mat t er s, i s

pl enar y . . . . " ) . We see no r eason why t hi s shoul d not be t r ue of

-27-


28/49

RLUI PA cl ai ms, whi ch ar e cor ol l ar i es of Fi r st Amendment Free

Exer ci se cl ai ms.

2. Cont ent of " Subst ant i al Bur den"

RCB bears t he bur den of demonst r at i ng t hat t he enact ment

of t he Or di nance i mposes a "subst ant i al bur den" on i t s r el i gi ous

exer ci se. RLUI PA does not def i ne "subst ant i al bur den, " al t hough

t he backgr ound of t he st atut e' s enactment pr ovi des some i ndi cat i on

of Congr ess' s i nt ended meani ng.

The pert i nent backgr ound begi ns wi t h Empl oyment Di vi si on

v. Smi t h, 494 U. S. 872, i n whi ch the Supr eme Cour t hel d that t he

Free Exer ci se Cl ause does not r el i eve i ndi vi dual s of t he obl i gat i on

t o compl y wi t h neut r al l aws of gener al appl i cabi l i t y t hat bur den

t hei r r el i gi ous exer ci se. 13 See i d. at 879. Congr ess r esponded t o

Smi t h by passi ng t he Rel i gi ous Fr eedom Rest or at i on Act of 1993

( RFRA) , Pub. L. No. 103- 141, 107 St at . 1488. Thi s st at ut e

pur por t ed t o over t ur n Smi t h and r ei nst at e the f r ee exer ci se

st andard announced i n Sher ber t v. Ver ner , 374 U. S. 398 ( 1963) , and

Wi sconsi n v. Yoder , 406 U. S. 205 ( 1972) , whi ch had r equi r ed t he

gover nment t o demonst r at e a compel l i ng i nt er est i n or der t o j ust i f y

a subst ant i al bur den on r el i gi ous pr act i ces. See RFRA, Pub. L. No.

103- 141, 2( a) ( 4) - ( 5) , ( b) ( 1) ; Sher ber t , 374 U. S. at 406- 07. The

Cour t t hen st r uck down the RFRA as appl i ed to t he st at es and thei r

13 The Ci t y has not ar gued t hat a f i ndi ng t hat t he Or di nancevi ol at es RLUI PA woul d r un af oul of t he Est abl i shment Cl ause. SeeCut t er v. Wi l ki nson, 544 U. S. 709, 713- 14 ( 2005) .

-28-


29/49

subdi vi si ons, hol di ng i t out si de t he scope of Congr ess' s

enf orcement powers under Sect i on 5 of t he Four t eenth Amendment .

Ci t y of Boer ne v. Fl or es, 521 U. S. 507, 519, 532 ( 1997) .

Congr ess r esponded agai n by passi ng RLUI PA, t hi s t i me

r el yi ng on t he Spendi ng and Commerce Cl auses and t arget i ng onl y t wo

ar eas of st at e r egul at i on: l and use and i nst i t ut i onal i zed per sons.

See Cut t er v. Wi l ki nson, 544 U. S. 709, 715 ( 2005) . RLUI PA

est abl i shed t he same r ul e f or t hese t wo l i mi t ed ar eas t hat Congr ess

had at t empt ed t o appl y more br oadl y i n t he RFRA: i t pr ohi bi t ed

st at e and l ocal gover nment s f r om pl aci ng a subst ant i al bur den on

r el i gi ous exer ci se unl ess t he gover nment coul d show t hat i t had a

compel l i ng i nt er est and t hat i t had used t he l east r est r i ct i ve

means t o achi eve t hat i nt erest . Compare RFRA, Pub. L. No. 103- 141,

3( b) , wi t h 42 U. S. C. 2000cc( a) ( 1) . The congr essi onal r ecor d

accompanyi ng t he passage of RLUI PA i n t he Senat e i ndi cat es t hat t he

sponsors of t he l aw i nt ended t he phr ase "subst ant i al bur den" t o be

" i nt er pr et ed by r ef er ence t o Supr eme Cour t j ur i spr udence. " 146

Cong. Rec. S7776 ( dai l y ed. J ul y 27, 2000) ( j oi nt st at ement of

Sens. Hat ch and Kennedy) .

The Supreme Cour t , however , has never provi ded a wor ki ng

def i ni t i on of "subst ant i al bur den" i n t hi s cont ext . As t he Second

Ci r cui t has not ed, Sher ber t - - one of t he cases on whi ch Congr ess

r el i ed i n f or mul at i ng i t s st at ut or y t est - - appr oached t he

"subst ant i al bur den" quest i on i n t er ms of a choi ce bet ween

-29-


30/49

f ol l owi ng one' s r el i gi on and obt ai ni ng gover nment benef i t s ( t her e,

unempl oyment benef i t s) , see 374 U. S. at 399- 400, a t ype of choi ce

t hat does not accur at el y descr i be t he si t uat i on i n r el i gi ous l and

use di sput es. See West chest er Day Sch. v. Vi l l age of Mamaroneck,

504 F. 3d 338, 348- 49 ( 2d Ci r . 2007) .

The Fi r st Ci r cui t has not of f er ed i t s own i nt er pret at i on

of "subst ant i al bur den" f or RLUI PA l and use pur poses. The par t i es

of f er var i ous abst r act f or mul at i ons to us. A number of ot her

ci r cui t s have announced t est s i n t er ms of such abst r act

f ormul at i ons, but t he st andards t hey have announced have not been

consi st ent . See, e. g. , Bet hel Wor l d Out r each Mi ni st r i es v.

Mont gomer y Cnt y. Counci l , 706 F. 3d 548, 556 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ( " [ A]

pl ai nt i f f can succeed on a [ RLUI PA] subst ant i al bur den cl ai m by

est abl i shi ng t hat a gover nment r egul at i on put s subst ant i al pr essur e

on i t t o modi f y i t s behavi or . " ) ; West chest er Day Sch. , 504 F. 3d at

349 ( f ormul at i ng t he quest i on as whet her "gover nment act i on . . .

di r ect l y coer ces t he r el i gi ous i nst i t ut i on t o change i t s behavi or "

( emphasi s omi t t ed) ) ; Li vi ng Water Chur ch of God v. Chart er Twp. of

Mer i di an, 258 F. App' x 729, 737 ( 6t h Ci r . 2007) ( aski ng whet her ,

" t hough t he gover nment act i on may make r el i gi ous exer ci se more

expensi ve or di f f i cul t , does t he gover nment act i on pl ace

subst ant i al pr essur e on a r el i gi ous i nst i t ut i on t o vi ol at e i t s

r el i gi ous bel i ef s or ef f ect i vel y bar a r el i gi ous i nst i t ut i on f r om

usi ng i t s pr oper t y i n t he exer ci se of i t s r el i gi on?") ; Mi dr ash

-30-


31/49

Sephar di , I nc. v. Town of Sur f si de, 366 F. 3d 1214, 1227 ( 11t h Ci r .

2004) ( subst ant i al bur den i s one t hat "pl ace[ s] mor e t han an

i nconveni ence on r el i gi ous exer ci se" and i s "aki n t o si gni f i cant

pr essur e whi ch di r ect l y coer ces t he r el i gi ous adher ent t o conf or m

hi s or her behavi or accor di ngl y") ; San J ose Chr i st i an Col l . v. Ci t y

of Mor gan Hi l l , 360 F. 3d 1024, 1034 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ( " [ F] or a l and

use r egul at i on t o i mpose a ' subst ant i al bur den, ' i t must be

' oppr essi ve' t o a ' s i gni f i cant l y gr eat ' ext ent . " ) ; Ci vi l Li ber t i es

f or Ur ban Bel i ever s v. Ci t y of Chi cago, 342 F. 3d 752, 761 ( 7t h Ci r .

2003) ( "[ I ] n t he cont ext of RLUI PA' s br oad def i ni t i on of r el i gi ous

exer ci se, a l anduse r egul at i on t hat i mposes a subst ant i al bur den

on r el i gi ous exer ci se i s one t hat necessar i l y bear s di r ect ,

pr i mar y, and f undament al r esponsi bi l i t y f or r ender i ng r el i gi ous

exer ci se . . . ef f ect i vel y i mpr act i cabl e. ") .

I n t he absence of Supreme Cour t gui dance, we do not adopt

any abst r act t est , but r at her i dent i f y some r el evant f act or s and

use a f unct i onal appr oach t o t he f act s of a par t i cul ar case. We

r ecogni ze di f f erent t ypes of bur dens and that such bur dens may

cumul at e t o become subst ant i al . At l east one ci r cui t has moved i n

t hi s di r ect i on, see Wor l d Out r each Conf er ence Ct r . , 591 F. 3d at 539

( " [ W] het her a gi ven bur den i s subst ant i al depends on i t s magni t ude

i n r el at i on t o t he needs and r esour ces of t he r el i gi ous

organi zat i on i n quest i on. " ) , and academi c comment ary has suggest ed

t he same, see R. Ber nst ei n, Note, Abandoni ng t he Use of Abst r act

-31-


32/49

For mul at i ons i n I nt er pr et i ng RLUI PA' s Subst ant i al Bur den Pr ovi si on

i n Rel i gi ous Land Use Cases, 36 Col um. J . L. & Ar t s 283, 305- 10

( 2013) ( expl ai ni ng common f actors t hat cour t s have consi der ed i n

assessi ng "subst ant i al bur den" under RLUI PA, r egar dl ess of how t he

st andard has been f ormul ated) .

Thi s appr oach i nvol ves consi derat i on of t he common- usage

under st andi ngs of t he t er m "subst ant i al bur den, " a t er m used i n

many ar eas of l aw wi t hout par t i cul ar abst r act f or mul at i ons. A

"bur den" i s " [ s] omet hi ng t hat hi nder s or oppr esses, " Bl ack' s Law

Di ct i onar y 223 (9t h ed. 2009) , or "somet hi ng oppr essi ve or

wor r i some, " Mer r i am- Webst er ' s Col l egi at e Di ct i onary 152 ( 10t h ed.

1993) ; see al so "Bur den/ bur t hen, n. , "

Oxf or d Engl i sh Di ct i onar y,

avai l abl e at ht t p: / / www. oed. com/ vi ewdi ct i onar yent r y/ Ent r y/ 24885

( "An obl i gatory expense, whet her due on pr i vat e account or as a

cont r i but i on t o nat i onal f unds; of t en wi t h t he addi t i onal not i on of

pr essi ng heavi l y upon i ndust r y and r est r ai ni ng f r eedom of

act i on. ") . Next , somet hi ng i s "subst ant i al " when i t i s "i mpor t ant "

or "si gni f i cant l y gr eat , " Mer r i am- Webst er ' s Col l egi at e Di ct i onar y

1174 ( 10t h ed. 1993) ; see al so "Subst ant i al , adj . , n. , and adv. , "

Oxf or d Engl i sh Di ct i onar y, avai l abl e at ht t p: / / www. oed. com/

vi ewdi ct i onar yent r y/ Ent r y/ 193050 ( as t o an act i on or measur e,

"havi ng wei ght , f or ce, or ef f ect ; ef f ect i ve, t hor ough") . A bur den

does not need t o be di sabl i ng t o be subst ant i al . We do not agr ee

wi t h those cour t s t hat have suggest ed t hat not hi ng shor t of

-32-


33/49

coer ci on t o change or abandon one' s r el i gi ous bel i ef s can meet t he

subst ant i al bur den test .

On t he ot her hand, we agr ee wi t h t he Second Ci r cui t ' s

observat i on t hat RLUI PA does not mean t hat any l and use rest r i ct i on

on a r el i gi ous organi zat i on i mposes a subst ant i al bur den - - such a

concl usi on woul d st r et ch Fi r st Amendment j ur i spr udence t oo f ar , see

West chest er Day Sch. , 504 F. 3d at 349- 50, and moreover woul d be

cont r ar y t o congr essi onal i nt ent , see 146 Cong. Rec. S7776 ( dai l y

ed. J ul y 27, 2000) ( "Thi s Act does not pr ovi de r el i gi ous

i nst i t ut i ons wi t h i mmuni t y f r om l and use r egul at i on . . . . ")

( j oi nt st atement of Sens. Hat ch and Kennedy) .

We do i dent i f y some f actors t hat cour t s have consi der ed

r el evant when det er mi ni ng whet her a par t i cul ar l and use rest r i ct i on

i mposes a subst ant i al bur den on a par t i cul ar r el i gi ous

or gani zat i on, but we do not suggest t hat t hi s i s an exhaust i ve

l i st . One f act or i s whet her t he r egul at i on at i ssue appear s t o

t ar get a r el i gi on, r el i gi ous pr act i ce, or member s of a r el i gi ous

or gani zat i on because of host i l i t y t o t hat r el i gi on i t sel f . See

Sai nt s Const ant i ne & Hel en Gr eek Or t hodox Chur ch, I nc. v. Ci t y of

New Ber l i n, 396 F. 3d 895, 898 ( 7t h Ci r . 2005) ( not i ng t hat ci t y had

al l owed rezoni ng of parcel owned by Pr otest ant chur ch but i mposed

addi t i onal pr ocesses on, and ul t i mat el y deni ed, Gr eek Or t hodox

chur ch' s r ezoni ng appl i cat i on f or adj acent par cel ) ; i d. at 900

( war ni ng of t he "vul ner abi l i t y of r el i gi ous i nst i t ut i ons - -

-33-


34/49

especi al l y t hose t hat ar e not af f i l i at ed wi t h t he mai nst r eam

[ Chr i st i an] sect s . . . t o subt l e f or ms of di scr i mi nat i on") ; cf .

Chur ch of t he Lukumi Babal u Aye, I nc. v. Ci t y of Hi al eah, 508 U. S.

520, 532- 33 ( 1993) .

Anot her i s whet her l ocal r egul ator s have subj ect ed t he

r el i gi ous organi zat i on t o a pr ocess t hat may appear neut r al on i t s

f ace but i n pr act i ce i s desi gned t o reach a pr edeter mi ned out come

cont r ar y t o t he gr oup' s r equest s. See, e. g. , Wor l d Out r each

Conf er ence Ct r . , 591 F. 3d at 537- 38 ( f i ndi ng t hat r el i gi ous

or gani zat i on st at ed a RLUI PA subst ant i al bur den cl ai m wher e ci t y

i nsi st ed t hat or gani zat i on seek a per mi t i t di d not need, t hen used

ot her pr ocesses t o "pul l [ ] t he r ug out f r om under " organi zat i on' s

appl i cat i on, i d. at 537) ; Gur u Nanak Si kh Soc' y of Yuba Ci t y v.

Count y of Sut t er , 456 F. 3d 978, 989 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( f i ndi ng

subst ant i al bur den wher e t he r el i gi ous or gani zat i on " r eadi l y agr eed

t o ever y mi t i gat i on measur e suggest ed by [ r egul at or s] , but t he

Count y, wi t hout expl anat i on, f ound such cooper at i on i nsuf f i ci ent , "

and the "br oad r easons" gi ven f or t he count y' s deni al s " coul d

easi l y appl y t o al l f ut ur e appl i cat i ons" by t he or gani zat i on) .

Cour t s have al so l ooked to whet her t he l and use

r est r i cti on was "i mposed on t he r el i gi ous i nst i t ut i on ar bi t r ar i l y,

capr i ci ousl y, or unl awf ul l y. " West chest er Day Sch. , 504 F. 3d at

350. Thi s may occur wher e, f or i nst ance, l ocal r egul at or s

di sr egar d obj ect i ve cr i t er i a and i nst ead act adver sel y t o a

-34-


35/49

r el i gi ous or gani zat i on based on t he obj ect i ons of a "smal l but

i nf l uent i al " gr oup i n t he communi t y. I d. at 346 ( not i ng t hat

"[ m] any of t he[ ] gr ounds" f or zoni ng boar d' s deni al of r el i gi ous

i nst i t ut i on' s bui l di ng per mi t appl i cat i on "wer e concei ved af t er t he

[ boar d] cl osed i t s hear i ng pr ocess, gi vi ng t he school no

oppor t uni t y t o r espond, " and t hat " t he st at ed r easons f or denyi ng

t he appl i cat i on wer e not suppor t ed by evi dence, " l eadi ng t he

di st r i ct cour t t o "sur mi se[ ] t hat t he appl i cat i on was i n f act

deni ed because t he [boar d] gave undue def erence t o the publ i c

opposi t i on of t he smal l but i nf l uent i al gr oup of nei ghbor s who wer e

agai nst t he school ' s expansi on pl ans" ) . I t may al so occur wher e

l ocal r egul at or s base t hei r deci si ons on mi sunder st andi ngs of l egal

pr i nci pl es. See Sai nt s Const ant i ne, 396 F. 3d at 899- 900

( descr i bi ng "r epeat ed l egal er r or s" by t he ci t y, suggest i ng t hat

er r or s wer e i ndi cat i ve of ci t y ei t her bei ng "deepl y conf used about

t he l aw" or "pl ayi ng a del ayi ng game, " and war ni ng of r i sks t o

r el i gi on wher e, as i n zoni ng pr ocesses, "a st at e del egat es

essent i al l y st andar dl ess di screti on to nonpr of essi onal s oper at i ng

wi t hout pr ocedur al saf eguar ds" ) .

Taken t oget her , t hese f act or s r eveal t hat t he subst ant i al

bur den anal ysi s of t en "backst ops t he expl i ci t pr ohi bi t i on of

r el i gi ous di scr i mi nat i on i n" RLUI PA' s subsect i on ( b) much i n t he

same way as " t he di sparat e- i mpact t heory of empl oyment

di scr i mi nat i on backst ops t he pr ohi bi t i on of i nt ent i onal

-35-


36/49

di scr i mi nat i on. " I d. at 900. Under t he subst ant i al bur den

f r amewor k, a cour t may bl ock appl i cat i on of a l and use regul at i on

under RLUI PA' s subsect i on (a) wher e the cont ext r ai ses an

"i nf er ence" of host i l i t y to a r el i gi ous or gani zat i on, even when t he

evi dence does not necessar i l y show t he expl i ci t di scr i mi nat i on "on

t he basi s of r el i gi on" cont empl at ed by subsect i on ( b) . I d.

Sever al cour t s have been sensi t i ve t o t hese concer ns. See, e. g. ,

West chest er Day Sch. , 504 F. 3d at 350- 51; Wor l d Out r each Conf erence

Ct r . , 591 F. 3d at 535- 38 ( r ever si ng di smi ssal of r el i gi ous

or gani zat i on' s RLUI PA subst ant i al bur den cl ai m, whi l e af f i r mi ng

di smi ssal of or gani zat i on' s RLUI PA di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m) .

3. De Novo Revi ew of Substant i al Bur den Anal ysi s

We st ar t wi t h t wo bedr ock obser vat i ons: f i r st , t hat a

r el i gi ous organi zat i on i s pr ot ect ed f r om gover nment bur dens whi ch

ar e i mposed based on t he or gani zat i on' s r el i gi ous bel i ef s; and

second, t hat t he Or di nance at i ssue i n t hi s case cannot be vi ewed

as a neut r al l aw of gener al appl i cabi l i t y i n t he Smi t h sense.

As t o t he f i r st i ssue, a gover nment may not si ngl e out

f or speci al benef i t or bur den a r el i gi ous gr oup or i nst i t ut i on

sol el y because of i t s r el i gi ous bel i ef s. See i d. at 532. Her e,

nothi ng i n t he l anguage nor t he backgr ound of t he Or di nance

i ndi cat es t hat host i l i t y to Cat hol i ci smor Cat hol i cs mot i vat ed t he

Ci t y' s deci si onmaki ng pr ocess. The l anguage of t he Or di nance does

not t ar get deconsecr at i on as such.

-36-


37/49

By i t s t er ms, t he Or di nance does not f or bi d t he SHC f r om

i nqui r i ng i nt o t he r el i gi ous cri t er i a t hat RCB uses t o det er mi ne

how i t wi l l appl y i t s r el i gi ous pr ot ocol s, nor f r omsecond- guessi ng

t he r el i gi ous concl usi ons reached by RCB as to what i s sacr ed. I n

t hi s r espect , t he Or di nance st ands i n cont r ast wi t h at l east some

ot her hi st or i c zoni ng or di nances whi ch expr essl y pr ohi bi t l ocal

hi stor i cal commi ssi ons f r om i nt er f er i ng i n l i t ur gi cal deci si ons.

See, e. g. , Fi r st Covenant Chur ch of Seat t l e v. Ci t y of Seat t l e, 840

P. 2d 174, 178 ( Wash. 1992) ; cf . Sher ber t , 374 U. S. at 402 ( "The

door of t he Free Exer ci se Cl ause st ands t i ght l y cl osed agai nst any

gover nment al r egul at i on of r el i gi ous bel i ef s as such. ") . But RCB

has not al l eged t hat t he SHC wi l l engage i n t hese f or bi dden

pr act i ces, nor has i t ar gued t hat t he SHC has hi st or i cal l y done so

wi t h r egar d t o any ot her r el i gi ous bui l di ngs. The Or di nance mer el y

r equi r es RCB t o undert ake an admi ni st r at i ve pr ocess common t o al l

hi st or i c di st r i ct s. We wi l l not assume t hat t he SHC wi l l use i t s

aut hor i t y t o t r ansgr ess t hese f or bi dden l i nes of chal l engi ng

l i t ur gi cal cri t er i a or concl usi ons, wi t hout evi dence t hat i t has

done so.

As t o t he second i ssue, we do not vi ew t he Or di nance as

a "neut r al l aw of gener al appl i cabi l i t y" i n t he sense t hat t he

Supr eme Cour t used t he t ermi n Smi t h. See 494 U. S. at 879 ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, 263 n. 3 ( 1982) ( St evens, J . ,

concur r i ng i n t he j udgment ) ) ; i d. at 879- 82. Rat her , t he Ci t y,

-37-


38/49

t hr ough t he SHC and Ci t y Counci l , i s vest ed wi t h di scr et i on t o

deci de when t o creat e a hi st or i c di st r i ct . The st r i ct ur es i mposed

as a r esul t of hi st or i c di st r i ct st at us do not appl y aut omat i cal l y

by st at ut e t o t he gener al popul at i on, but appl y once cer t ai n

of f i ci al s of t he Ci t y deci de t hat t hey wi l l appl y. Hi stor i c

di st r i ct or l andmar k or di nances ar e di f f er ent f r om ot her t ypes of

zoni ng r ul es i n t hat t hei r ent i r e pur pose i s t o pr event onl y

par t i cul ar pr oper t y owner s i n l i mi t ed ar eas f r om changi ng t he

appear ance of par t i cul ar pr oper t i es. 14 I n t hi s sense, i t can be

sai d t hat t he Or di nance i s not "gener al l y appl i cabl e. "

One of t he danger s of a di scr et i onar y syst emsuch as t hi s

one i s t he pr ospect t hat t he gover nment ' s di scr et i on wi l l be

mi sused. I n t hi s case, t her e wer e some t r oubl i ng ci r cumst ances

sur r oundi ng t he Ci t y' s enact ment of t he Or di nance. For i nst ance,

t he Or di nance was proposed af t er t he news was r el eased t hat RCB

pl anned t o cl ose t he Chur ch, and i t was support ed by par i shi oner s

opposed t o the (ot her wi se unr evi ewabl e) cl osi ng deci si on and t hose

sympat het i c t o t hei r cause. The r ecor d does not i ndi cat e any

i nt er est i n i ncl udi ng t he Chur ch i n a hi st or i c di st r i ct bef or e t hat

14 We not e t hat , gi ven t he nat ur e of hi st or i c di st r i ct

desi gnat i ons, t he mer e f act t hat t he Or di nance i s concer ned wi t honl y one bui l di ng, and t hat t hat one bui l di ng i s a chur ch, does noti n i t sel f r esol ve t he bur den quest i on. See Rect or , War dens, &Members of t he Vest r y of Sai nt Bar t hol omew' s Chur ch v. Ci t y of NewYor k, 914 F. 2d 348, 354 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) . I t i s t he nat ure of t hebur den - - not t he char act er of t he l aw - - t hat cont r ol s ouranal ysi s.

-38-


39/49

deci si on i n t he l at e summer of 2009. 15 See Lukumi , 508 U. S. at 540-

41 ( not i ng si gni f i cance of f act t hat or di nances r egar di ng ani mal

sacr i f i ce wer e enact ed i n di r ect r esponse to news t hat a Sant er a

chur ch woul d open i n t own) . The SHC r epor t acknowl edges t hat par t

of t he Ci t y' s i nt ent i n cr eat i ng t he Di st r i ct was t o pr event RCB

f r om f ol l owi ng t he same pat h i t had t aken wi t h anot her l ocal

chur ch, whi ch had been cl osed, deconsecrated, and sol d to a

devel oper who demol i shed i t . I t was arguabl y because RCB mi ght

concl ude t hat demol i t i on of t he Chur ch was r equi r ed t hat t he Ci t y

chose t o i nt er vene.

The SHC, Ci t y Counci l , and mayor pressed t he Or di nance

t hr ough the appr oval pr ocess qui ckl y, i n a mat t er of weeks,

coi nci di ng wi t h t he t i mel i ne of t he Chur ch' s cl osi ng ( t he Or di nance

became l aw on December 30, 2009, and went i nt o ef f ect on J anuar y

20, 2010; t he l ast servi ces at t he Chur ch wer e hel d on J anuary 1,

2010) . The Ci t y' s of f i ci al s t ook t hese act i ons wi t hout consi der i ng

t he Or di nance' s pot ent i al const i t ut i onal i mpl i cat i ons, despi t e

r epeat ed r equest s by RCB f or a l egal consul t at i on and an of f er by

t he Ci t y' s sol i ci t or to pr ovi de l egal advi ce. Cf . Sai nt s

Const ant i ne, 396 F. 3d at 899 ( "The repeat ed l egal er r or s by t he

Ci t y' s of f i ci al s cast s doubt on t hei r good f ai t h. ") . The Ci t y

Counci l di d not even wai t f or t he r epor t of i t s own st udy commi t t ee

15 The SHC' s r epor t ment i ons t hat t he Chur ch was sur veyed f orpossi bl e i ncl usi on i n t he Nat i onal Regi st er of Hi st or i c Pl aces i n2001, but appar ent l y no act i on was t aken bet ween 2001 and 2009.

-39-


40/49

bef or e appr ovi ng t he Di st r i ct . At t he Ci t y Counci l hear i ng, one

counci l or accused RCB' s counsel of l yi ng about RCB' s deci si onmaki ng

pr ocess i n cl osi ng t he Chur ch, suggest i ng di ssat i sf act i on wi t h t hat

r el i gi ousl y mot i vat ed deci si on. Cf . Rect or , War dens, & Member s of

t he Vest r y of Sai nt Bart hol omew' s Chur ch v. Ci t y of New Yor k, 914

F. 2d 348, 355 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) ( hol di ng t hat l andmar ki ng l aws can

per mi ssi bl y si ngl e out i ndi vi dual par cel s, "absent pr oof of t he

di scri mi nat or y exer ci se of di scret i on" i n i dent i f yi ng such par cel s

( emphasi s added) ) .

I n t he end, however , t hese t r oubl i ng f act s surr oundi ng

t he enact ment of t he Or di nance ar e not out come determi nat i ve,

because t hi s exer ci se of di scret i on ( t hat i s, desi gnat i ng t he

Chur ch as a si ngl e- par cel hi st or i c di st r i ct ) does not est abl i sh a

pr ocess, appar ent l y neut r al , t hat i n f act wi l l r esul t i n t he deni al

of any r equest t hat RCB may make t o t he SHC. See, e. g. , Wor l d

Out r each Conf erence Ct r . , 591 F. 3d at 537- 38; Gur u Nanak Si kh

Soc' y, 456 F. 3d at 989. The Or di nance r equi r es onl y t hat RCB

submi t any pl ans t o al t er t he exter i or of t he Chur ch t o t he SHC.

Shoul d t he SHC i n f act pr event RCB, when i t does have speci f i c

pl ans f or t he si t e, f r om under t aki ng any por t i on of i t s r el i gi ous

pr act i ce of deconsecr at i on, t he si gni f i cance of t he Or di nance' s

backgr ound can be eval uat ed anew i n the cont ext of any l at er

chal l enge.

-40-


41/49

I n addi t i on t o the t wo concer ns out l i ned above, we

eval uat e t he act ual , t angi bl e bur dens t hat exi st ence of t he

Or di nance i mposes on RCB. RCB r epr esent ed t o t he Ci t y Counci l t hat

i t must bear a f i nanci al bur den of mai nt ai ni ng t he Chur ch, whi ch

f al l s on t he newl y mer ged par i sh and const r ai ns RCB' s deci si ons

about how t o al l ocat e t he Di ocese' s r esour ces. But t he mer e

exi st ence of some expenses does not put "subst ant i al pr essur e on

[ RCB] t o modi f y i t s behavi or . " Bet hel Wor l d Out r each, 706 F. 3d at

556. Ther e ar e many scenar i os under whi ch RCB woul d be payi ng t o

mai nt ai n t he Chur ch, onl y some of whi ch ar e f ai r l y t r aceabl e t o t he

Or di nance. Fur t her , RCB di d not submi t evi dence of t he degr ee of

t hese expenses, nor of t he Chur ch' s pr oper t y val ue bef or e or af t er

passage of t he Or di nance. See, e. g. , Fi r st Covenant Chur ch of

Seat t l e, 840 P. 2d at 183 ( not i ng, i n const i t ut i onal subst ant i al

bur den anal ysi s, evi dence t hat l andmar k ordi nance "r educe[ d] t he

val ue of t he Chur ch' s pr oper t y by al most hal f " ) .

RCB does f ace st atut ory penal t i es i f i t makes any changes

t o t he Chur ch wi t hout t he SHC' s per mi ss i on, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

40C, 13, but t hi s possi bi l i t y does not mean t hat t he pr ocess of

appl i cat i on t o t he SHC i s i t sel f bur densome. The Or di nance asks

RCB onl y to del ay the deci si ons i t makes pur suant t o i t s

deconsecr at i on pl ans whi l e t he SHC eval uat es i t s appl i cat i on, a

-41-


42/49

pr ocess t hat , accor di ng t o t he SHC' s own r ul es, shoul d t ake no more

t han si xt y days. 16

I n t hi s case, al l of t he f actor s we have i dent i f i ed

combi ne t o show t hat RCB cannot , sol el y on i t s chal l enge t o t he

enact ment of t he Or di nance, pr ove t hat i t suf f er s a subst ant i al

bur den on i t s r el i gi ous exer ci se.

Because we deci de t hat RCB has not shown a subst ant i al

bur den, we need not addr ess t he quest i on of whether t he Or di nance

i s " i n f ur t her ance of a compel l i ng gover nment al i nt er est " and i s

"t he l east r est r i ct i ve means of f ur t her i ng" t hat i nt er est . 42

U. S. C. 2000cc( a) ( 1) ( A) - ( B) .

B. RLUI PA "Equal Ter ms"

RCB al so ar gues bef or e thi s cour t t hat t he Or di nance

vi ol at es anot her pr ovi si on of RLUI PA, t he "equal t er ms" provi si on, 17

whi ch st at es: "No government shal l i mpose or i mpl ement a l and use

r egul at i on i n a manner t hat t r eat s a r el i gi ous assembl y or

i nst i t ut i on on l ess t han equal t er ms wi t h a nonr el i gi ous assembl y

or i nst i t ut i on. " 42 U. S. C. 2000cc( b) ( 1) . RCB ar gues t hat t he

16 I f t he SHC does not act on an appl i cat i on wi t hi n si xty days,i t "shal l " i ssue t he r equest ed cer t i f i cat e of har dshi p.

17 I n t he di st r i ct cour t , RCB al so ar gued t hat t he Or di nancevi ol at ed RLUI PA' s "nondi scr i mi nat i on" and "unr easonabl el i mi t at i ons" pr ovi si ons. 42 U. S. C. 2000cc( b) ( 2) - ( 3) ; see RCB,760 F. Supp. 2d at 191. RCB di d not addr ess t hose t wo pr ovi si onsi n i t s openi ng br i ef t o t hi s cour t , and t he Ci t y ar gues t hat anycl ai ms based on t hose pr ovi si ons ar e wai ved. We agr ee wi t h t heCi t y.

-42-


43/49

Ci t y vi ol at ed t hi s pr ovi si on because t he Di st r i ct was, at t he t i me

of i t s enact ment , t he onl y si ngl e- par cel hi st or i c di str i ct i n

Spr i ngf i el d.

The ci r cui t s di sagree as t o t he appl i cabl e comparat or i n

a RLUI PA "equal t erms" anal ysi s. Compar e Mi dr ash Sephardi , 366

F. 3d at 1230- 31 ( "nat ur al per i met er " of i nqui r y i s t he uni ver se of

ent i t i es whi ch qual i f y as "assembl [ i es] or i nst i t ut i on[ s] ") , wi t h

Li ght house I nst . f or Evangel i sm, I nc. v. Ci t y of Long Br anch, 510

F. 3d 253, 264 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) ( r el i gi ous i nst i t ut i on must show t hat

a secul ar compar at or i s si mi l ar l y si t uat ed i n r el evant r espect s) .

RCB does not poi nt t o any par t i cul ar secul ar i nst i t ut i on or cl ass

of i nst i t ut i ons t hat was t r eat ed di f f er ent l y t han was RCB. Rat her ,

RCB compar es i t sel f t o ever y secul ar i nst i t ut i on i n t he Ci t y of

Spr i ngf i el d, none of whi ch ar e i ncl uded i n a si ngl e- par cel hi st or i c

di st r i ct . Under any r easonabl e i nt er pr et at i on of t he equal t er ms

pr ovi si on, t hi s ar gument f ai l s.

The MHDA empower s muni ci pal i t i es t o choose how many

par cel s t o i ncl ude i n any gi ven hi st or i c di st r i ct . The Ci t y has

enact ed a number of hi st or i c di st r i ct s over t he year s, of var yi ng

si zes, and of t en i ncl udi ng bot h secul ar and r el i gi ous bui l di ngs.

The Ci t y compl i ed wi t h t he MHDA' s process f or desi gnat i ng t he

Di st r i ct , as i t pr esumabl y di d i n al l ot her i nst ances when i t

cr eat ed hi stor i c di st r i ct s .

-43-


44/49

By anal ogy, t he Supr eme Cour t has r ecogni zed i n a

di f f er ent cont ext t hat l andmar k l aws - - whi ch oper at e si mi l ar l y to

si ngl e- par cel hi stor i c di str i ct s - - ar e not necessar i l y oper at i ng

i n a di scr i mi nat or y manner when t hey si ngl e out par t i cul ar par cel s

f or speci al t r eat ment :

[ L] andmar k l aws are not l i ke di scr i mi nat or y,or "r ever se spot , " zoni ng: t hat i s, a l and- usedeci si on whi ch ar bi t r ar i l y si ngl es out apar t i cul ar par cel f or di f f er ent , l essf avor abl e t r eat ment t han t he nei ghbor i ng ones.I n cont r ast t o di scr i mi nat or y zoni ng, whi ch i st he ant i t hesi s of l anduse cont r ol as par t ofsome compr ehensi ve pl an, t he [ l andmark] l awembodi es a comprehensi ve pl an t o pr eservest r uctur es of hi st or i c or aest het i c i nt er estwher ever t hey mi ght be f ound i n t he ci t y[ . ]

Penn Cent . Transp. Co. v. Ci t y of New Yor k, 438 U. S. 104, 132

( 1978) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Li kewi se, t he mer e f act t hat a l andmar k

desi gnat i on or a si ngl e- par cel hi st or i c di st r i ct appl i es onl y t o a

house of wor shi p does not i n i t sel f const i t ut e a t ar get i ng of

r el i gi on t hat of f ends t he Fi r st Amendment . See Sai nt

Bar t hol omew' s, 914 F. 2d at 354.

The mer e f act of t he Or di nance' s exi st ence does not

demonst r at e t hat RCB was t r eat ed on l ess t han equal t erms wi t h

nonr el i gi ous i nst i t ut i ons, par t i cul ar l y wher e RCB does not poi nt t o

any r el evant comparat ors.

C. Fi r st Amendment Cl ai ms

1. Fr ee Exer ci se of Rel i gi on

-44-


45/49

RLUI PA' s congr essi onal r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat t he sponsor s

of t he l aw i n t he Senat e i nt ended t he phr ase "subst ant i al bur den"

t o be i nt er pr et ed consonant l y wi t h

Roman Catholic Bishop v. City of Springfield, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of Roman Catholic Bishop v. City of Springfield, 1st Cir. (2013)