205 F.Supp.3d 1014
D. Minnesota2016Background
- Riverside Church (the Church) sought to buy a former 15-screen movie theater in St. Michael (B-1 General Business district) to use for worship; zoning then prohibited churches in B-1 while allowing theaters.
- Church made multiple purchase attempts (offers, a purchase agreement, later an option), conditioned on municipal zoning approval; City staff told Church religious assembly was not permitted in B-1.
- Church applied to amend the zoning text to permit churches in B-1; City denied the application citing traffic, parking, and commercial/secondary-effect concerns and imposed a temporary moratorium while studying assemblies/theaters/churches.
- While litigation was pending, the City amended its ordinance to create a general "Assembly" category and made assemblies conditional in B-1; it then granted the Church a conditional use permit.
- The Church sued under RLUIPA and the First Amendment (free exercise; speech/assembly) and asserted a defamation claim based on a City website statement about the negotiations. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/ripeness/mootness | Church: denial of zoning amendment and staff statements prevented purchase/use, causing concrete injury and final municipal decision; claims ripe | City: Church never owned property; amendments moot claims for injunctive relief | Court: Church had standing; claims were ripe; injunctive/declaratory relief moot after ordinance change but damages/fee claims live |
| RLUIPA — safe harbor / equal terms & substantial burden | Church: ordinance and denial discriminated against religious assemblies (treated theaters better) and substantially burdened its religious exercise | City: amended ordinance and permit eliminated burden/discrimination (safe harbor); ban rationally related to traffic/economic interests | Court: Safe-harbor applies; Counts under RLUIPA dismissed. Even on merits, no substantial burden and churches not similarly situated to theaters for zoning purposes |
| First Amendment — free speech & assembly | Church: ordinance unlawfully discriminated between religious and secular assemblies (content-based) | City: ordinance is content-neutral regulation of secondary effects (traffic, commercial vitality) and leaves alternative channels | Court: ordinance is content-neutral; genuine fact issues on whether it was narrowly tailored preclude summary judgment for either party on speech/assembly claim |
| First Amendment — free exercise | Church: ban and moratorium substantially burdened worship/ability to locate | City: laws are neutral, generally applicable, only incidentally burdensome; rational basis review applies | Court: ban did not impose a substantial burden; moratorium did impose a heavier burden but was neutral and generally applicable; overall free exercise claim dismissed |
| Defamation (website statement) | Church: City falsely stated Church refused an enforceable worship-space limit and withdrew from negotiations for that reason, harming reputation | City: statement was opinion/accurate or privileged/immune | Held: triable issues of falsity, defamatory meaning, and privilege — summary judgment denied for City |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under §1983)
- City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41 (1986) (zoning regulation of secondary effects is content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny)
- Cornerstone Bible Church v. City of Hastings, 948 F.2d 464 (8th Cir. 1991) (zoning restriction on churches can be content-neutral when aimed at secondary effects)
- Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2003) (RLUIPA safe-harbor: post hoc ordinance amendments can eliminate claims)
- Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004) (ripeness and equal-terms analysis under RLUIPA)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing doctrine)