Mast v. Fillmore County
20-7028
| SCOTUS | Jul 2, 2021Background
- The Swartzentruber Amish in Fillmore County objected to a 2013 county/MPCA ordinance requiring modern septic systems for gray-water disposal as conflicting with their religious practice.
- Amish offered an alternative: mulch/wood-chip basins (earthen systems) used in other States to treat gray water.
- MPCA filed enforcement actions seeking installation of septic systems and threatened criminal penalties, fines, and displacement; County unsuccessfully sought interior home inspections and challenged the sincerity of religious beliefs.
- Minnesota trial court found for the County and ordered septic systems; the court of appeals affirmed and the state supreme court denied review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Fulton v. Philadelphia, emphasizing RLUIPA strict-scrutiny requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of RLUIPA strict scrutiny | Mast: RLUIPA requires strict scrutiny; government must prove a compelling interest and least-restrictive means for denying an exemption to these Amish. | County: Public sanitation is a compelling interest and the septic mandate is generally necessary; burden is minimal. | Court vacated/remanded: Fulton requires precise, person-specific strict-scrutiny review; lower courts misapplied RLUIPA. |
| Burden regarding alternatives | Mast: Government must prove proposed mulch basins won't work; plaintiffs need not prove perfection. | County: Amish failed to show an adequate alternative or pressed the claim below. | Remand: Government bears the burden to show alternatives are inadequate for these claimants; record must be developed. |
| Relevance of exemptions others enjoy | Mast: Minnesota permits hand-carriage discharge and other exceptions; County must explain why Amish cannot get similar flexibility. | County: Broad rule application forecloses exceptions; allowing one risks many. | Court: Under strict scrutiny, government must justify denying an exception it grants others. |
| Evidentiary proof of narrow tailoring/site-specific facts | Mast: County’s speculative assertions about site suitability and maintenance are insufficient. | County: No local examples of mulch basins; practical and site constraints make them unworkable. | Remand: County must provide concrete evidence about these particular farms/claimants rather than conjecture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. _ (2021) (clarifies RLUIPA/Free Exercise strict-scrutiny analysis and requires precise, claimant-specific review)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (recognizes strong free-exercise protections for Amish way of life)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (courts must scrutinize asserted harms of granting specific exemptions)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (RLUIPA/free-exercise strict-scrutiny requires showing alternatives are inadequate)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (under strict scrutiny, widespread underinclusiveness undermines asserted compelling interest)
- Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U.S. _ (2021) (per curiam) (government may not assume worst; must treat comparable secular activities similarly)
- Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U.S. 163 (1996) (per curiam) (vacatur and remand for further consideration appropriate when controlling authority changes)