Roman Catholic Bishop v. City of Springfield
760 F. Supp. 2d 172
D. Mass.2011Background
- Plaintiff is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, challenging a single-parcel Our Lady of Hope Historic District ordinance in Springfield, MA that would require a certificate of appropriateness or exemption before altering exterior features.
- Our Lady of Hope Church was closed January 1, 2010 as part of a diocesan plan to merge the parish with St. Mary Mother of Hope; deconsecration procedures are governed by Canon Law.
- The Ordinance was enacted December 29, 2009 to designate the church parcel as a local historic district under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40C, § 6 and § 10, creating potential review by the Springfield Historical Commission.
- Plaintiff did not file an application for an exemption under the Historic Districts Act at the time of challenge, arguing the ordinance infringes religious exercise and rights, while defendants contend the ordinance simply implements an existing statutory scheme.
- The court’s analysis focuses on ripeness, arguing that asserting rights prior to any exemption decision involves uncertain events and that some claims are not ripe for review at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of claims | Claims arise from enactment and potential deconsecration impact, before any exemption decision. | Claims are not ripe absent an exemption decision or meaningful application. | Certain administrative-burden and deconsecration-related claims deemed ripe for review; others not ripe. |
| RLUIPA substantial burden (§ 2000cc(a)(1)) | Historic-district designation imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise by forcing secular review before changes to exterior features. | Burden is de minimis and not a substantial burden under the statute. | No substantial burden; burden deemed de minimis; motion granted on Count Nine. |
| RLUIPA equal terms (§ 2000cc(b)(1)) | Ordinance singles out Plaintiff’s property for discriminatory treatment in applying historic-district review. | Single-parcel designation is not discriminatory; acts under the Historic Districts Act are neutral. | No equal-terms violation; Count Eight will fail. |
| First Amendment Free Exercise/Establishment Clause | Ordinance is not neutral or generally applicable and may reflect a religious gerrymander; establishment concerns noted. | Historic Districts Act provides objective, neutral criteria; no impermissible entanglement or targeting. | Freedoms challenged do not show a constitutional violation; Count One dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (landmarking as part of a comprehensive preservation plan)
- Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (futility exception and burden of seeking exemptions before review)
- Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51 (1st Cir. 1991) (futility exception requires a meaningful exemption application)
- First Covenant Church of Seattle v. City of Seattle, 840 P.2d 174 (Wash. 1992) (landmark designation and neutrality under applicable statutes)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (landmarking as part of a comprehensive plan to preserve historic structures)