Third Church of Christ, Scientist v. City of New York
626 F.3d 667
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- In 2006 the Third Church of Christ, Scientist contracted with the Rose Group to fund renovations in exchange for the right to hold private catered events at the church.
- The Church sought and obtained an accessory-use permit from the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) in June 2006 as renovations proceeded.
- In 2007 DOB issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the permit, claiming the catering was not an accessory use but a principal commercial use.
- On November 30, 2007, DOB issued a final revocation of the June 2006 permit.
- The Church sued under RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision alleging unequal treatment with nearby secular comparators, and the district court granted a permanent injunction in December 2008; the City appealed.
- The Beekman and Regency hotels in the same neighborhood operated catering and event facilities and held COOs that City claimed permitted such uses, and were identified as key secular comparators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hotels are valid secular comparators under RLUIPA equal-terms | Church argues hotels are similarly situated | City contends hotels differ in use/COO status | Yes; hotels are similarly situated for purposes of equal-terms |
| Whether formal differences between the Church and hotels defeat comparability | Formal differences do not defeat equal-terms | Differences matter for comparability | No; differences do not defeat comparability under the record |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing the permanent injunction | Injunction appropriate to enforce equal terms | Injunction overreach; unequal treatment not proven | Within the range of reasonable discretion; injunction affirmed |
| Whether the district court properly treated equal-terms analysis as a comparison of similarly situated entities | Proper comparator analysis used | Comparator was improperly selected | District court’s comparator analysis was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Konikov v. Orange County, 410 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2005) (secular comparator based on comparable community impact)
- Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007) (focus on impact and purpose of regulation in facial challenge)
- River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc; upheld plan applying a single commercial-use criterion to religious and secular groups)
- Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton, Inc. v. Broward County, 450 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006) (comparator consideration when processes differ; not controlling here)
- Reynolds v. Giuliani, 506 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2007) (injunction standard; abuse of discretion review)