Federal Judge Considers Castle Rock Religious Exercise Case | Courts

In a case apparently designed to appeal to the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal judge heard arguments Monday about whether a Castle Rock church’s religious beliefs that it should provide shelter to the homeless are enough to allow the congregation to bypass city-imposed zoning restrictions and continue operating temporary shelters in a parking lot.

On the surface, The Rock Evangelical Church is seeking a short-term court order that would allow it to continue using one recreational vehicle and one camper to temporarily provide shelter to homeless individuals and families, despite the city’s position that the church’s land use zoning does not allow for residential use.

But U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Domenico expressed concerns that granting the church a preliminary injunction would mean other religious institutions could ignore zoning restrictions. More specifically, exempting two temporary shelters from zoning regulations on religious grounds could mean that The Rock’s more extensive plans to build homes on its 54-acre property could one day be covered by a religious exemption.

“There’s a lot more going on. There’s a lot more that your client wants to do with this property,” Domenico told the church’s attorney. “If I issue this order … we’re going to come back here and tell the city of Castle Rock they have to allow this much larger project. We’re not just talking about a few families. We’re talking about a real change in the character of what’s happening on this property.”

He also added that “the city can’t do anything about it.”

In this case, The Rock had been using his camper and trailer in recent years to temporarily house homeless people. The city, responding to neighbors’ complaints, informed the church that Castle Rock’s zoning did not allow for RV living.

The Rock then filed a lawsuit against Castle Rock.

Among other things, it was charged with violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that prohibits any land-use regulation that imposes a “substantial burden” on the exercise of religion. To prevail, the government must establish a compelling interest and show that regulation is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

Many aspects of the lawsuit suggested that the ultimate recipient of its arguments was the Supreme Court. The church’s attorneys include a veteran Supreme Court litigator and the First Liberty Institute, which has brought numerous cases involving religious practices to the Supreme Court, including an appeal by a high school coach who wanted to publicly lead prayers after football games.

Church lawyers also noted that they were clearly seeking to overturn 34 years of Supreme Court precedent on religious freedom. Although Domenico is bound by it, several conservative justices have signaled interest in partially overturning Employment Department v Smitha 1990 ruling that largely allows courts to uphold generally applicable, religion-neutral laws that actually impose burdens on religion.

At least three justices present supported the idea that governments should always have to show that neutral religious practice rules are narrowly defined and advance a compelling interest — a position that lawyers for The Rock would now adopt if the case were to go that far.

At the preliminary injunction hearing, Domenico was most concerned about the church’s position, avoiding the avalanche of religious institutions seeking further exemptions from the city’s zoning code on the grounds that their religious beliefs would be burdened without any compelling reason. In an extreme case, he noted, it could mean that land-use codes would no longer apply to religious homes.

“Why couldn’t you or the next church say, ‘We want 10 RVs’ or ‘We want to build a small apartment building on our property?’ Wouldn’t the rules that you’re asking me to apply require me to allow that as well?” said Domenico, a Trump appointee.

Misha Tseytlin, a lawyer for the church, responded that RLUIPA is “strong medicine” that Congress enacted to provide special protections to religious houses in land-use decisions.

“If some citizens complain about this, I will tell them, with all due respect, that their complaint should be directed to their congressman, senator or whoever is president,” Tseytlin said.

The city responded that if the church wanted to change its zoning to allow a homeless shelter, it could simply go through the normal legislative process rather than immediately resort to a federal lawsuit. In addition, the 2003 land annexation agreement between The Rock and the city explicitly included the church’s recognition that land use regulations did not impose a significant burden on the exercise of religion.

The Castle Rock Church also disputes the claim that the homeless shelters on the church grounds were the only place the church could practice its religious beliefs, given that the camper trailer and motor home were unused for most of the church’s existence.

“We question the sincerity of that. Because if it was sincere, where was it in 2003 when they agreed to zone their property nonresidential and agreed it didn’t interfere with their mission?” argued city attorney Geoffrey C. Klingsporn.

Domenico said the church’s other options to help families find shelter “sound like great ideas to me. But if they (the church) say, ‘No, we feel a religious motivation to use this great property that we have for this particular purpose,’” Domenico wondered, “who am I to tell them, ‘No, you should try something else?’”

He added: “Are we going to have a trial over what the Bible says about people sleeping in campers on church property? I’m not excited about that.”

The thing is this Church of the Rock, Inc. v. City of Castle Rock.