599 F.Supp.3d 1120
S.D. Ala.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Thai Meditation Association of Alabama and individuals) purchased the Eloong Drive property to build a Dhammakaya Buddhist meditation center in an R-1 single-family residential district and sought planning approval, a PUD, and subdivision approval.
- The City’s Zoning Ordinance permits churches with planning approval in R-1 districts; Planning Commission and City Council denied Plaintiffs’ applications citing incompatibility, substandard access, and traffic concerns after public hearings that included neighborhood opposition and questions about whether TMAA’s activities were religious or secular.
- Plaintiffs operate existing meditation activities at a commercial Airport Boulevard site but contend that site is inadequate for retreats, ordination, hosting monks, and a serene practice setting; they claim zoning denial substantially burdens their religious exercise.
- Procedural history: Plaintiffs sued under RLUIPA (substantial burden), RLUIPA equal-terms / nondiscrimination (some counts previously dismissed), First Amendment Free Exercise, Equal Protection, Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment (ARFA), and negligent misrepresentation. After bench trial and Eleventh Circuit remand vacating portions of earlier summary judgment rulings, parties filed renewed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted the City’s renewed motion and denied Plaintiffs’ motion, dismissing Counts 1 (RLUIPA substantial-burden), 4 (Free Exercise), and 6 (ARFA) with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial imposed a "substantial burden" under RLUIPA (Count 1) | Denial prevents needed space for retreats, ordination, monk visits, and a serene facility—delay/expense of relocating is itself burdensome | Denial applied to site-plan conversion and compatibility concerns; other city properties allow religious uses; plaintiffs continue current practices | Court: No substantial burden shown; even if, City met interest/means—summary judgment for City |
| Whether the City's action violated Free Exercise Clause (Count 4) | Denial was an individualized, non-neutral assessment targeting religious exercise; triggers strict scrutiny | Zoning ordinance is neutral and generally applicable; denial was a land-use decision applying objective criteria | Court: Law neutral and generally applicable; burdens incidental and not unconstitutional—summary judgment for City |
| Whether ARFA (Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment) requires strict scrutiny and whether City satisfied it (Count 6) | ARFA triggers strict scrutiny for any government burden; City failed least-restrictive-means showing | City has compelling interest in zoning, safety, and preserving residential character; denial was least restrictive means | Court: Although ARFA triggers strict scrutiny, City showed compelling interests (transportation, access, traffic, neighborhood harmony) and denial was least restrictive—summary judgment for City |
| Relief / final disposition on cross-motions | Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on remaining counts | City sought summary judgment dismissing Counts 1,4,6 | Court: Granted City’s motion; denied Plaintiffs’; Counts 1,4,6 dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Thai Meditation Ass’n of Ala., Inc. v. City of Mobile, 980 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 2020) (remand guidance and factors for RLUIPA substantial-burden analysis)
- Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004) (definition and burden allocation for RLUIPA substantial-burden claim)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutrality and general applicability framework under Free Exercise)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (RLUIPA’s broad protection for religious liberty)
- Westchester Day Sch. v. Village of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2007) (factors on nexus, alternatives, and whether denial is final/conditional)
- Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery Cty. Council, 706 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2013) (delay, uncertainty, and expense of relocation can show substantial burden)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (discussion of individualized assessments and strict scrutiny under Free Exercise)