Glassman v. Arlington County, VA
628 F.3d 140
4th Cir.2010Background
- In 2004, Arlington approved a plan to redevelop the First Baptist Church property into a 10-story mixed-use building with church facilities on lower floors and 70 affordable and 46 market-rate apartments above.
- The Church conveyed the property to the Views at Clarendon Corporation, which formed 1210 North Highland Street, Clarendon Limited Partnership to purchase and fund the project.
- Funding for the housing component came from Arlington County's Affordable Housing Investment Fund, the Virginia Housing Development Authority, and federal housing credits, while the Church funded its portion.
- Glassman, a nearby Arlington taxpayer, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Establishment Clause violations and Virginia parallel protections, seeking to enjoin the project and recover funds.
- The district court dismissed the complaint as failing to state a plausible Establishment Clause claim and the Virginia counterpart, leading to an appeal.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, applying the Lemon test and holding the County’s involvement did not have a secular purpose sham, nor primary religious effect or excessive entanglement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment Clause purpose | Glassman: County’s secular purpose is a sham favoring the Church. | Arlington: Purpose to provide affordable housing is sincere and secular. | Secular purpose supported; claim not plausible. |
| Establishment Clause primary effect / entanglement | Glassman: funding and layout advance religion and create entanglement. | Arlington: no indoctrination; no excessive entanglement; funds fund secular housing. | No plausible effect or entanglement; no violation. |
| Virginia Constitution parallel claim | Glassman: Virginia Establishment protections exceed federal standard. | Arlington: parallel protections align with federal analysis; no greater protection. | Parallel Virginia claim rejected; no broader protection. |
| Civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment | Glassman asserts joint action deprived rights and unjust enrichment. | Defendants argue lack of constitutional deprivation and no unjust enrichment under pleadings. | Claims properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (establishment test: secular purpose, primary effect, entanglement)
- Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) (sincerity of secular purpose required)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (entanglement and government involvement analysis)
- Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988) (primary effect and indoctrination considerations)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (pleading standards and plausibility in 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1899) (nonprofit directors' religious affiliation does notstrip secular status)
- Ehlers-Renzi v. Connelly Sch. of the Holy Child, Inc., 224 F.3d 283 (4th Cir. 2000) (state action interaction with religion permitted at some level)
- Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416 (4th Cir. 1996) (conspiracy elements require deprivation of rights; failure to show)