June 24, 2010
(Suffern, N.Y.): S&G media
release on Bikur Cholim Shabbos House settlement.
Read the United States Department of Justices
Religious
Freedom in Focus, highlighting Bikur
Cholims case.
White Plains, N.Y. (June 17, 2010): S&G client
Bikur Cholim Shabbos House and United States Department
of Justice sign Consent Decrees with Village of Suffern,
New York to permit operation of an existing one-family
residence for free overnight lodging, kosher meals and
religious observance on the Sabbath and other Holy Days
for visitors or patients discharged from Good Samaritan
Hospital in Suffern:
Suffern, N.Y. (June 18, 2010): S&G client Bikur
Cholim Shabbos House settles with Village of Suffern:
| |
A New York City suburb has settled a civil rights
lawsuit and will allow Orthodox Jews to gather
at a house near a hospital so they can visit patients
on the Sabbath without breaking their religious
laws.
The village of Suffern had denied a variance from
single-family zoning. Under the settlement, as
many as 14 people can stay overnight at the home,
known as a "Shabbos House."
The Orthodox, who typically don't drive, use electricity,
exchange money or carry objects on the Sabbath,
can drive to the residence on a Friday, before
the Sabbath begins at sundown. They can walk to
Good Samaritan Hospital during the Sabbath and
drive home after it ends. Discharged patients
can also stay there.
|
Jim Fitzgerald, suburb
settles suit over Jews "Shabbos House,"
Associated Press (June 17, 2010)
Suburban
NY village will allow Orthodox Jews to gather at house
near hospital on Sabbath, Fox News (June
17, 2010)
Khurram Saeed, Suffern
settles Shabbos house lawsuits with operators and feds,
Journal-News (June 18, 2010)
Rockland
County Village Agrees To Permit Shabbos House
To Resolve U.S. Civil Rights Lawsuit, Vos
Iz Neias (June 17, 2010)
Orthodox
Union praises settlement of Bikur Cholim lawsuit,Orthodox
Union (June 18, 2010)
Media
Release, U.S. Attorneys Office
(June 17, 2010)
Editorial, Making
room for Shabbos house,"Journal-News (June
21, 2010)
Boulder, Colo. (May 17, 2010): Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals rules for Rocky Mountain Christian Church in
major RLUIPA victory against Boulder County:
| |
Contrary to the Countys claims, the district
court plainly weighed the Countys zoning
interests: the court did not agree that RMCCs
special use application violated the County Land
Use Code, and found that RMCCs statutory
right to free exercise of religion outweighed
the negative impacts of expansion on the community.
|
S&G, together with co-counsel Sidley Austin LLP,
filed a brief
amicus curiae supporting the Rocky Mountain Christian
Church. The brief was filed on behalf of the American
Jewish Congress, The National Council of Churches, the
Queens Federation of Churches, the General Conference
of Seventh-day Adventists, the Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations of America and the National Committee for
Amish Religious Freedom.
Opposing the Church were various anti-RLUIPA groups, including
the International Municipal Lawyers Association, National
League of Cities, and the American Planning Association:
| |
The denial caught the attention of land-use experts
across the country, who were particularly surprised
that such a decision would be handed down in a
case related to Boulder County, which is known
for its rigorous land-use rules.
|
Boulder
Countys denied appeal in church expansion garners
national attention, Laura Snyder, Daily Camera
(May 21, 2010).
Woodboro, WI (Apr. 28, 2010): Motions filed in
Bible Camp case:
| |
The war of words in the five-year-old Bible camp
battle continues unabated with a flurry of new
paperwork totaling over 100 pages by the plaintiffs
asking the court to, among other things, dismantle
the defendants defenses and to deny the
Town of Woodboro's motion to dismiss the case.
The plaintiffs brothers Arthur, Randall
and Wesley Jaros, who are principals of Eagle
Cove Camp & Conference Center, Inc.
are suing the Town of Woodboro and Oneida County
over denials of a permit to build a Bible camp
on 34 acres of land on the western end of Squash
Lake.
|
Bible
camp word war heats up, Joe Costanza, News of the
North (Apr. 28, 2010)
More
papers filed in Bible camp case, Heather Schaeffer,
Rhinelander Daily News (Apr. 30, 2010).
Madison, WI (Mar. 10, 2010 ): Eagle Cove Camp
& Conference Center files suit against Oneida County
and Town of Woodboro, challenging laws and decisions prohibiting
Bible camp use:
| |
Christian Bible camp ministries are a vital
form of religious exercise, separate and distinct
from organized churches, states the Camp
in its Complaint. . . . Religious exercise
does not only take place in church, said
Roman P. Storzer, attorney for the Camp. Congress
specifically passed RLUIPA to protect any
exercise of religion, whether it happens
in a church, school, home or a Bible Camp. It
is not the governments job to tell believers
how and where they may worship.
|
Complaint
(Filed Mar. 10, 2010).
Media Release
(Mar. 10, 2010).
Bible camp
group sues Oneida County, town over permit denial,
Joe Costanza, News of the North (Mar. 10, 2010)
Lawsuit
challenges zoning refusal for Bible camp, Howard Friedman,
Religion Clause] (Mar. 12, 2010)
Lawsuit
filed over Bible camp, Heather Schaeffer, Rhinelander
Daily News (Mar. 11, 2010)
Eagle
Cove Lawsuit, Newswatch 12] (Mar. 11, 2010)
Woodboro, WI (Feb. 11, 2010): Bible camp rejected
by Oneida County
| |
The five-year battle over a proposed Bible camp
in the Town of Woodboro is far from over despite
a written decision by the Oneida County Board
of Adjustment issued Thursday, Feb. 11, that upholds
a July 2009 county planning and zoning department
decision to deny a conditional use permit (CUP).
. . . Heading up the fight for the plaintiffs
will be the New York City and Washington, D.C.-based
law firm, Storzer & Greene, P.L.L.C, . . .
|
Jaros to file
federal lawsuit against county and town over Bible camp,
News of the North (Feb. 11, 2010).
BOA puts
Bible camp decision in writing, Rhinelander
Daily News (Feb. 12, 2010)
Eagle
Cove Camp, Newswatch 12 (Feb. 12, 2010).
Richmond, Va. (Jan. 26, 2010): Repeal of unconstitutional
ordinances set for public hearing after lawsuit filed
against Chesterfield County.
| |
Chesterfield County is looking to repeal its
"good character" requirements for certain
business permits after a spiritual counselor filed
a lawsuit accusing the county of violating her
constitutional rights. . . . "It appears
that the county is acknowledging the constitutional
problems with their antiquated ordinances,"
said Moore-King's attorney, Roman P. Storzer.
"We are pleased that this may be remedied
soon by legislative action. It does not redress
all of the legal roadblocks faced by [Moore-King],
but it's a good start."
|
Wesley P. Hester, Chesterfield
looks to change good character permit laws,
Richmond Times-Dispatch (Jan. 26, 2010).
| |
Woogy-Boogy. We do marvel at Chesterfield's
strict rules for fortune tellers, and wonder why
they're so strict. A background check? Police
permission? Why on Earth? None of the surrounding
localities has policies anywhere near so onerous,
and they do not seem to be suffering from a fortune-telling
crime wave.
|
Editorial,
BusinessWeek (Jan. 25, 2010).
Wesley P. Hester, Spiritual
advisor suing Chesterfield County, Richmond
Times-Dispatch (Jan. 21, 2010).
Richmond, VA (Dec. 21, 2009): Media coverage of
King v. County of Chesterfield
| |
King claims Chesterfield County unconstitutionally
classifies her as "engaged in the occupation
of occult sciences," and subject to its business
tax and zoning rules. King says the tax is excessive
and violates her First Amendment rights. She points
out that other businesses, including itinerant
merchants and peddlers, adult businesses and nightclubs
pay significantly less in taxes.
|
Ryan Abbott, Courthouse
News Service, (Dec. 21, 2009)
Al Harris, Richmond
Biz Sense, (Dec. 21, 2009)
Rhinelander, WI (Dec. 1, 2009): S&G argue that RLUIPA
applies to administrative zoning proceedings:
| |
The law firm Storzer and Greene of Washington,
D.C., and New York City also submitted a brief
on behalf of the Jaros family which said that
the BOA "has the authority and responsibility
to consider RLUIPA" and in doing so has the
authority to create an "exemption" from
the county zoning code. Referring to the town's
resistance to the project, based upon their land
use plan, Storzer and Greene warned, "the
Town's position here will subject the Board and
its members to potential liability since religious
freedom rights protected by RLUIPA are at issue.
The Board and its members do so at its own risk.
Such action would expose the Board and its members
to years of litigation, potentially millions of
dollars in damages and attorneys' fees, together
with a substantial likelihood of eventually allowing
the use regardless."
|
Ruth Sproull, "Bible
Camp appeal before Board of Adjustment; ruling due Jan.
12", News of the North (Dec. 7, 2009)
Jeff Allen, Eagle
Cove Bible Camp Appeal, WJFW Newswatch
12 (Dec. 2, 2009)
Heather Schaefer, No
resolution in Bible camp appeal, Rhinelander
Daily News (Dec. 2, 2009)
Richmond, Va. (Dec. 18, 2009): Complaint filed
against County of Chesterfield claiming that regulation
of fortune-tellers violates the First Amendment.
| |
Nobody should be subject to official disadvantage
based on their spiritual beliefs, said Kings
attorney Roman P. Storzer of Storzer & Greene,
P.L.L.C. The First Amendment protects a
broad range of viewpoints, and Ms. King should
not be treated as a second-class citizen because
of hers. Mr. Storzer is joined in representing
Ms. King by John G. Stepanovich, a Chesapeake
civil rights attorney, and Chandra Lantz, of the
Richmond firm Hirschler Fleischer.
|
Press Release
Complaint
filed Dec. 18, 2009
S&G and Sidley Austin LLP file
brief amicus curiae in the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals supporting the Rocky Mountain Christian Church
in its litigation against Boulder County and in support
of the constitutionality of RLUIPA.
| |
In enacting RLUIPA, Congress established a record
that recognizes the concern that giving government
officials unbridled discretion in making such
individualized assessments can, and does, lead
to discrimination and the jurys findings
below further support the legitimacy of that concern.
|
The brief was filed on behalf of the American Jewish
Congress, The National Council of Churches, the Queens
Federation of Churches, the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations
of America and the National Committee for Amish Religious
Freedom. A copy of the brief can be found here.
Black River Falls, Wisc. (Sept. 29, 2009): S&G
successfully defends Amish right to refuse to submit a
signed building permit application: Wisconsin court
grants the motion of S&G client National Committee
for Amish Religious Freedom to dismiss the Town of Albion's
suit against Samuel Stoltzfus:
| |
The court was satisfied by the briefs that were
filed in this matter that he did indeed establish
a sincerely held religious belief that prevented
him from signing a permit application. When that
occurs, the burden shifts to the township to establish
a compelling state interest from enforcing a requirement
that a permit application be submitted and signed.
. . . The court does not believe that the township
has offered a compelling governmental interest
to overcome the objection raised by Mr. Stolzfus
on religious grounds.
This case of constitutional dimension is a case
probably not only important to our community and
our county and and the State of Wisconsin,
it is probably a case that has potential for national
consequences.
|
Transcript
of September 29, 2009 Hearing, Jackson County Circuit
Court, Wisconsin.
Washington, D.C. (July 2009): United States
Department of Justices Religious Freedom in
Focus highlights the Bikur Cholim Shabbos House
decision:
| |
On June 25, a federal court in New York ruled
that the [lawsuit] under the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) should
proceed to trial against a village that barred
a Jewish group from operating a Shabbos
House next to a hospital. . . . The court
rejected the Villages argument that facilitating
visiting the sick on the Sabbath was not religious
exercise for purposes of triggering the
protections of RLUIPA. The court held that religious
exercise under RLUIPA is intended to
be defined broadly, and covers most
activity that is tied to a religious groups
mission. Thus, the court held, Bikur Cholims
facilitation of Sabbath observance for Jews visiting
the hospital or being discharged from the hospital
constitutes religious exercise under the statute.
|
Shabbos
House Suit May Proceed, Court Rules, U.S. Department
of Justice, Civil Rights Divisions Religious
Freedom Focus (Vol. 39). Storzer & Greene represents
the Shabbos House and is litigating the case against the
Village of Suffern together with the Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorneys
office for the Southern District of New York.
White Plains, N.Y. (June 24, 2009): Judge refuses
to dismiss Shabbos House case. The federal court for
the Southern District of New York held that
| |
It has the power and authority, if appropriate,
to enjoin defendant from enforcing its Zoning
Law and requiring it to revise the Zoning Law
to comply with RLUIPA and relevant constitutional
provisions...
|
See the attached opinion.
S&Gs Media Release here.
For more information, see the following:
James Walsh, "Suffern
Shabbos House dispute may need a trial to get answers,
Journal News (July 3, 2009).
| |
A trial appears likely in the four-year dispute
between the village and the operators of a house
used by observant Jews visiting patients at Good
Samaritan Hospital.... Savad and Roman Storzer,
a Manhattan attorney also representing Bikur Cholim,
cited the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000, or RLUIPA, as their protection
against discrimination. Storzer also represents
five other individuals suing Suffern, citing RLUIPA
in opposing the village. They claimed their practice
of religion was burdened by having to choose between
observing the sabbath and holidays or visiting
the sick at the hospital.
|
Court
Refuses to Dismiss RLUIPA Challenge to Shabbos House,
Religion Clause (June 30, 2009).
White Plains, N.Y. (May 20, 2009): Rabbinical College
lawsuit against Village of Pomona argument heard in federal
court:
| |
Attorneys representing Pomona village and a developer
of a planned rabbinical college had their first
face-off yesterday afternoon before a U.S. District
Court judge. Congregation Rabbinical College of
Tartikov sued the village in July 2007, arguing
that Pomona's land-use regulation and conduct
prohibited it from building and operating the
college and housing for students on a 130-acre
site off routes 202 and 306. . .
Roman P. Storzer, attorney for the developer,
told the judge that the village's actions have
been discriminatory against Hasidic Jewish students,
who simply wish to enjoy their rights to study
|
Pomona,
Tartikov developer clash before federal judge,
Page
2 Journal-News (May 21, 2009).
Washington, D.C. (May 18, 2009): Victory for S&G client
Third Church of Christ; Brutalist building may be demolished
| |
Score one for the little guy: Mayor Adrian Fenty's
representative has ruled that members of a downtown
church must be allowed to worship in a building
of their choice, despite efforts by historic preservationists
to landmark the 38-year-old concrete bunker of
a sanctuary that the church wants to get rid of.
|
Marc Fisher, Decision
Saves a Church, Not a Building," Washington
Post (May 19, 2009).
Press Release, Church
cleared for demolition: Building goes so Church can survive,
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (May 13, 2009).
D.C.
Modernist church can be demolished, USA Today
(May 18, 2009).
"D.C.
OKs demolition of Christian Science Church,
Washington Business Journal (May 13, 2009).
Kevin Eckstrom,
D.C. church wins fight to raze its ugly building,The
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (May 13, 2009).
Hayley Peterson, Demolition
OKd for historic church after maintenance found
too costly, Washington Examiner (May
14, 2009).
Bridgewater Township, N.J. (May 9, 2009): Hindu Temple
and Cultural Center Notice
of Decision published, Courier News.
Washington, D.C. (May 12, 2009): District of Columbia
Mayors Agent Approves Church Demolition
| |
Nor can the Church walk away. While some congregations
may freely move their location without losing
their identity, that is not the case here. Throughout
its history, this congregation has manifested
an unwavering intent to remain where it is. Its
location is its mission. To leave the area it
has served since 1918 would be tantamount to its
destruction.
|
Decision
and Order, District of Columbia Office of Planning,
Historic Preservation Office.
Bridgewater, N.J. (May 3, 2009):
After long legal battle, Hindu temple in Bridgewater
wins expansion approval
| |
After a five-year battle with the Bridgewater
zoning board, the Sri Venkateswara Hindu Temple
has won approval for a major expansion of its
facility, despite resistance from the township
and neighboring residents.
The Sri Venkateswara Temple retained Storzer &
Greene -- a high-profile, Washington law firm
that specializes in religious land-use cases throughout
the United States -- and filed a lawsuit in 2007.
|
David
Giambusso, The Star-Ledger (May 3, 2009)
Bridgewater, N.J. (April 29, 2009): Hindu Temple
and Cultural Center to build cultural center, priest housing,
temple expansion:
| |
This is an important day for religious
freedom, said Temple attorney Roman P. Storzer.
The efforts of both the Temple and the Township
have led to a result that works for everyone.
Our clients have long awaited this moment to serve
their community.
The Hindu Temple and Cultural Center of USA has
the Board of Adjustment go-ahead to expand, ending
a five-year standoff on the project. The Board
of Adjustment unanimously approved a resolution
outlining the conditions of the project at Route
202-206 and Old Farm Road during a meeting Tuesday
night.
|
Read S&Gs media release here.
Read more information here.
Westchester County, N.Y. (April 13, 2009): Lawsuit
involving shaving of Sikh man settled:
| |
United Sikhs and law firm Storzer & Greene
secured a settlement including $20,000 in compensation
for Pyara Singhs family, training for the
facilities staff, and adoption of hospital
care guidelines specific for the care of Sikh
patients as part of the staff training materials.
We applaud the willingness of Westchester
County Health Care to accommodate the religious
needs of Sikh patients, said First Amendment
attorney Roman P. Storzer. When people are
at their most vulnerable, its important
to know that the First Amendment doesnt
get lost in the process.
|
Amandeep Kaur, Healthcare
facility settles lawsuit over shaving of elderly Sikh
man, Global Sikh News (Apr. 13,
2009).
Washington, D.C. (Apr. 13, 2009): Washington Post column
on Third Church landmarking suit:
| |
The years-long battle over whether the District's
historic preservation police can force a Christian
Science church to keep a ugly, cold, expensive
home that it doesn't want took a turn toward the
church's side the other day, as a federal judge
made clear his sympathy for the church's plight.
. . . He seemed highly skeptical of the city's
argument
that a religious organization's right to freedom
of expression does not protect its building from
demolition. "Arguing that historic landmarking
posed no burden on the church blinks reality,"
the judge said. . . . "A violation of First
Amendment rights is always ripe" material
for a court to consider, Robertson said, a blow
to the District's argument that preservation decisions
should be made purely on architectural and historical
merit--not the preferences or freedoms of a church
or other group that owns such a building.
|
Marc Fisher,
"Brutalist Church: The City Loses A Round,"
Washington Post (Apr. 13, 2009).
Washington, D.C. (April 7, 2009): Federal
court refuses to dismiss Third Church of Christ, Scientists
lawsuit against District of Columbia.
| Roman P.
Storzer, lead counsel for the Church, argued that
the landmarking of its structure at the corner of
16th and Eye Streets in Washington, |
|
D.C--only a few blocks from the White House--presents
a ripe case and controversy for federal adjudication under
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the First Amendment.
The District of Columbia and the Districts Historic
Preservation Review Board had unsuccessfully argued that
landmarking a structure itself causes no legal injury
to a religious property owner.
| |
The issue before the court is whether landmarking
the structure violates the church's First Amendment
rights. And according to [Mike] Silverstein, Judge
Robertson clearly signaled his willingness to
overturn the Metropolitan Baptist Church case
holding that landmarking of a church does not
pose a "special burden". Robertson also
criticized the HPRB hearing which denied the raze
permit, where Chairman Tersh Boasberg dismissed
First Amendment issues as being beyond the scope
of the Board's purview. "I am very troubled
that the District refused to even entertain assertions
of violations of First Amendment, RLUIPA and RFRA
rights," Robertson said.
|
David Alpert, Greater
Greater Washington (April 9, 2009).
Court
denies DCs request to dismiss Churchs lawsuit
to raze Brutalist building, The Becket Fund
for Religious Liberty Press Release (Apr. 7, 2009).
Baltimore, Md. (Mar. 12, 2009): Religious land use
discrimination case moves forward
| |
Citizens for Walkersville is a grassroots group
that organized opposition to the Muslim group's
plans, and dominated public testimony during appeals
board hearings in January and February 2008. It
was led by Ed Marino of Walkersville, who served
as president, and Steven R. Berryman of Frederick,
who served as spokesman. The attorney for Citizens
of Walkersville, Robert R. McGill, motioned for
a universal dismissal of the case. Bennett denied
the motion.
|
Article
text here, Business Gazette.
Virginia Beach, Va. (March 17, 2009):
Buddhists will continue worship services in Virginia Beach;
settlement with City reached:
| |
The city and a group of Buddhist monks have reached
a tentative settlement that would allow them to
continue holding worship services in their Pungo
home. "We've accomplished our objective,"
said John Stepanovich, the attorney for the Buddhist
Education Center of America Inc. "It was
always about the continued religious service."
|
S&G represented the Buddhist Education Center of America,
Inc. and several Buddhist monks, together with Virginia
Beach attorney John G. Stepanovich.
Beach, Buddhist monks agree on home worship,
Deirdre Fernandes, The Virginian-Pilot (Mar. 17,
2009).
Baltimore, Md. (March 6, 2009): Federal court
denies the majority of the Town of Walkersville's Motion
to Dismiss; Town officials, private organization and individuals
remain defendants in discrimination case:
| |
The Government Defendants have not met their
burden of establishing that they are entitled
to immunity for the alleged constitutional violations.
They have not argued with any particularity that
the alleged constitutional or statutory violations
were not clearly established at the time they
occurred, or that an objectively reasonable person
would not have known that his actions violated
that person's clearly established rights...
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint pleads ample facts
to support their contention that the Private Defendants
joined with the Government Defendants to block
the sale of the Moxley Farm to the AMC.
|
S&G's Press Release is available here.
A copy of the court's opinion can be found here.
"Discrimination Suit Can Advance, Henri
E. Cauvin, Washington Post (March 7, 2009).
Judge
moves Moxley v. Walkersville case ahead, Ron
Cassie, Frederick News Post (March 7, 2009).
Baltimore, Md. (February 27, 2009): Roman Storzer
defended the lawsuit involving Walkersville's denial of
the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's special exception to
build a mosque on a 200+ acre property against the Walkersville
and private defendants' motions to dismiss in a hearing
in United States District Court in Baltimore. The court
is expected to rule on the motion by Friday, March 6.
| |
A key early motion presented by the defense to
Judge Richard D. Bennett seeks to remove the Walkersville
burgess, town commissions andmembers of the board
of appeals from the suit as individuals -- apart
from their official roles.
Storzer remained encouraged after the first day
both parties were in court. Asked if he thought
Bennett would rule in favor of allowing the burgess,
commissioners, and appeals board members to remain
defendants as individuals, Storzer commented,
"We're very hopeful."
|
For further reading please visit the link below:
Religious
bias suit begins in U.S. District Court,
Ron Cassie, Frederick News Post (March 2, 2009).
White Plains, N.Y. (March 10, 2009): Mr. Storzer,
together with co-counsel Paul Savad and John Stepanovich,
will defend the Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov's
lawsuit against the Village of Pomona, New York. The College's
Complaint states:
| |
The history described [in the complaint], including
the targeted laws, actions and conduct, and the
statements made by public officials including
the newly elected Mayor Sanderson, demonstrate
the entrenched hostility to the Plaintiffs' use
of the Subject Property as a Rabbinical College.
|
The hearing before the Honorable Judge Kenneth M.
Karas in the Southern District of New York was postponed
from February 10.
"Tartikov
Yeshiva Dispute Returns To Court Next Week,"
Yeshiva World News (Feb. 1, 2009).
"Pomona,
NY - Tartikov Town Dispute Back in Court," Voz
Iz Neias (Feb. 1, 2009).
Baltimore, Md. (February 27, 2009): The Town of Walkersville's
motion to dismiss the complaint filed against it, challenging
its land use policies and enforcement concerning the Ahmadiyya
Muslim Community, will be heard on February 27, 2009 in
federal district court for the District of Maryland.
Washington, D.C. (February 6, 2009): S&G
files Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the Friends
Committee on National Legislation, the Stated Clerk of
the Presbyterian Church USA, the Presiding Bishop of the
Episcopal Church, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious,
the National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom, and
the Rutherford Institute. In a case involving the desecration
of a site holy to Native Americans, the brief argues that
the Ninth Circuit incorrectly defined "substantial
burdens" on religious practice and drastically limited
the scope of statutory protections of religious freedom.
A copy of the brief is available here
Storzer & Greene's press release can be found here
The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is available here
For further reading, visit the links below:
"Tribes
& Environmental Groups Petition Supreme Court in Appeal
to Protect Religious Freedom & Environmental Integrity
of Sacred Mountain," Klee Benally, Save the Peaks
Coalition (January 6, 2009)
"San
Francisco Peaks," Amy Corbin, Sacred Land Film
Project (August 2007)
New York, NY (November 26, 2008): Federal Court
of Appeals upholds right of congregation to build a religious
school under settlement reached with the Village of Airmont,
New York:
| |
The defendants assert that inasmuch as the settlement
and order were contrary to state law, they were
void and should be vacated because they violated
the defendants' due process rights. They contend
that the settlement violates state law because
it allows the plaintiffs to build a residential
school that is not permitted under the Village
of Airmont's zoning code. . . . None of these
cases, nor any other of which we are aware, stands
for the proposition that a court-ordered settlement
agreement that is contrary to zoning or similar
laws violates a party's due-process rights and
is therefore subject to attack under Rule 60(b)(4)
as void.
|
Renowned civil rights attorney John G. Stepanovich
argued the case for the Congregation Mischknois Lavier,
with assistance from S&G. The opinion can be found
here.
In the related case brought by the United States Department
of Justice against the Village, the District Court rejected
the Villages motion to dismiss the United States
complaint, decision here.
See also the United States Department of Justice Civil
Rights Divisions Religious
Freedom in Focus, Vol. 36 (Nov.
2008).
Grand Rapids, Michigan (October 30,
2008): S&G Client Great Lakes Society vindicated by
Michigan Court of Appeals in landmark case challenging
a townships determination that a non-mainstream
church was not a church:
| |
Already over half a century ago, the Court of
Appeals of New York handed down an often cited
summary of what constitutes a church in contemporary
society: A church is more than merely an
edifice affording people the opportunity to worship
God. Strictly religious uses and activities are
more than prayer and sacrifice and all churches
recognize that the area of their responsibility
is broader than leading the congregation in prayer.
Churches have always developed social groups for
adults and youth where the fellowship of the congregation
is strengthened with the result that the parent
church is strengthened . . .
|
Read the opinion here.
Now that the townships wrongful determination has
been corrected, the Great Lakes Societys pursuit
of legal remedy continues.
Wall Street Journal column on S&G landmarking
case
| |
The congregation, which bitterly opposed landmark
designation in December 2007, filed a federal
lawsuit this August arguing that the designation
violated its First Amendment rights by restraining
its ability to practice religion freely. . . .
[T]his case is more outrageous than the norm,
given the structure in question. Most such controversies
swirl around church properties of a certain age,
as when, in 1981, St. Bartholomew's Church on
Park Avenue in New York sought, in vain, to demolish
its lovely community house in order to build a
modernist tower alongside its renowned Byzantine
church, constructed in 1916. The Third Church's
building, by contrast, is relatively new -- indeed,
too new to be designated historic under federal
law.
|
Julia Vitullo-Martin, "A
Congregation Fights for the Right to Raze Its Ugly Church,
Wall Street Journal Nov. 20, 2008. More
information about the Third Church and its lawsuit can
be found here
Trial, Journal of the American Association for
Justice, writes about the Congregation Rabbinical
College of Tartikovs attempt to build a religious
educational facility:
| |
This case presents a really clear set of circumstances,"
said Roman Storzer, a Washington, D.C., lawyer
who is co-counsel for the rabbinical college involved.
"It shows a substantial burden being placed
on a particular faith group and is a perfect case
for the equal-terms provision of [RLUIPA]. It
is an emblematic case of why Congress passed the
statute." . . . "This represents a boiling-over
point for Rockland County," said Storzer.
"There has been a large influx of [Hasidic
Jews] into the county, who have a very different
lifestyle, form of worship, and form of education.
The backlash began in the '90s and the discrimination
has continued."
|
Municipalities
wrangle with religion over zoning laws, Carmel Sileo,
Trial.
Walkersville, Md. (August 28, 2008): Walkersville
Commissioner proposes to amend ordinance to permit school
on agricultural land; AMC mosque still prohibited:
| |
Town Commissioner Chad Weddle said Wednesday
he could see how some might view his recent proposal
to amend a planning ordinance as discriminatory,
but his intentions are only to better the community.
. . .
Roman P. Storzer, an attorney for Moxley, said
he applauds local governments that accommodate
schools and other social institutions, though
he wishes the same benefits would have been offered
to the Muslim group.
|
Proposal
would allow Banner School in Walkersville -- Change would
still block Muslim community, Sarah Fortney, Frederick
News Post
Richmond, Va. (August 29, 2008): The Richmond
Times-Dispatchs editorial on S&G client
Third Church of Christs lawsuit against the District
of Columbia: The District of Columbia and the Commonwealth
of Virginia need to stop brutalizing the sacred sphere.
Washington, D.C. (Aug. 21, 2008): NPRs
story on the Third Church of Christs challenge to
the landmarking of its place of worship by the District
of Columbia can be found here
| Washington,
D.C. (August 7, 2008):
S&G client Third Church of Christ, Scientist
files suit against the District of Columbia for
landmarking its church building. Read our press
release here. |

|
| |
Lead counsel Roman Storzer said the church is
suing to remove the landmark status so it can
build a new building in its place. Storzer claimed
that the landmark restrictions are in violation
of federal civil rights law about religious land
use as well as the First Amendments guarantees
for freedom of worship.
In the hierarchy of values that should
be protected, freedom of religion has to come
before architecture, Storzer said.
|
Church
files suit to allow demolition of historic downtown
building, Michael Warren, D.C. Examiner (Aug.
7, 2008).
| |
"It will be the first of its kind in terms
of the ability of a government to prevent a church
from being able to worship as it sees fit through
the imposition of historic preservation laws,"
says Roman Storzer, the church's attorney who
filed the lawsuit.
|
Congregation
fights for right to tear down church, Adam Tuss,
WTOP News (Aug. 7, 2008).
Church
sues over landmark status, Sarah Abruzzese, New
York Times (Aug. 7, 2008).
Church
sues do undo landmark status, Sindya Bhanoo, Washington
Post (Aug. 8, 2008).
Church
sues District over landmark, Tom Ramstack, Washington
Times (Aug. 8, 2008).
Brief Filed in Wisconsin For National Committee
for Amish Religious Freedom.
Black River Falls, Wisconsin June 23, 2008:
Storzer & Greene and Black River Falls attorney,
Ken Artis, today filed a brief seeking to have the National
Committee for Amish Religious Freedom intervene in a
case in which the town of Albion, Wisconsin, is seeking
fines ranging from $25.00 to $1,000.00 per day from
an Amish farmer who did not obtain a building permit
for his home, a house which he built according to Amish
traditional techniques.
| |
According to the brief, the Committee will attempt
to intervene in the case to protect the right
of religious freedom for the Amish under both
the Wisconsin and the United States Constitution.
Greene, the attorney representing the Committee,
said[,] "This is a value of the very highest
order."
|
Amish
farmer may get national legal help in permit case,
Megan VerHelst, Jackson County Chronicle (July
15, 2008).
Walkersville, MD. (June 10, 2008): A Muslim
group was unanimously denied the ability to use 224 acres
of farmland intended as a mosque and for their annual
Jalsa Salana event; various remedies are available to
landowner David Moxley.
| |
It is a "sad, sad situation," when
Ahmadiyya members are not allowed to worship freely
in America; many moved from their native countries
to escape the same persecution for their beliefs.
Moxley could also take the case to federal court
to deal with potential civil rights violations,
Storzer said. That option would seek enforcement
of the religious freedom protections in the federal
and Maryland constitutions and the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
|
For further reading please visit the links below:
It's official: Walkersville formally denies Muslim group,
Sarah Fortney, Frederick News Post (June 6, 2008)
Landowner
in Ahmadiyya decision considers appeal, Sarah Fortney,
Frederick News Post
(June 7, 2008)
Walkersville
Officially Denies Muslim Farm Purchase; Attorneys May
Appeal, Megan Healey, NBC25
(June 5, 2008)
New York, NY (May 30, 2008): Storzer & Greene
to defend religious liberty of Amish.
| |
S&G has been retained by the National Committee
for Amish Religious Freedom to defend the rights
of the Amish to follow their religious beliefs
in the construction of homes and farm buildings.
The Town of Albion, located in Jackson County,
Wisconsin, has sued several Amish men for an assortment
of alleged building code violations. The Old Order
Amish have a religious code that emphasizes simplicity,
the imitation of Christ and his disciples and
separation from outside society.
The National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom
has a long history of defending the rights of
the Amish to exercise their religion freely. Since
many Amish believe that their religion requires
them to turn the other cheek when they are subjected
to persecution or legal harassment, the Committee
organizes legal defense. It was instrumental in
the seminal victory for religious rights, Wisconsin
v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), as well as
many other significant cases.
|
Frederick, Md. (May 29, 2008): Walkersvilles
written decision prohibiting a small group of Muslims
from building a mosque in suburban Maryland is expected
soon. Decision
on Muslim retreat center due June 5, Jeremy Hauck,
Gazette (May 29, 2008).
Greenbelt, Md. (May 14, 2008): Bethel World
Outreach Ministries challenges County actions against
church development:
| |
This church had a very substantial need for
a facility that can accommodate its various ministries,
and it purchased property in a zoning district
that allowed places of worship and has been prevented
from building its church by various means ever
since, said Roman P. Storzer, the churchs
attorney.
|
Brendan
Kearney, The Daily Record (May 14, 2008).
Bridgewater, N.J. (Mar. 26, 2008): Bridgewater
zoning board of adjustment approves memorandum of understanding
with S&G client Hindu Temple and Cultural Center of
USA:
| |
Although it is unfortunate that the Temple was
forced to seek redress in the courts, a just result
will hopefully be reached soon, said Temple
attorney Roman P. Storzer. The Temple looks
forward to being able to provide religious programs
to its members, to co-exist harmoniously with
its neighbors, and to put this four-year saga
behind it.
|
For further information, see our press
release
Hindu
temple expansion in Bridgewater may be allowed, Ralph
Ortega, The Star-Ledger (March 26, 2008).
New City, NY (Mar. 18, 2008): Roman Storzer
to testify before the Rockland County legislature, joined
by co-counsel Paul Savad and John Stepanovich, criticizing
a Resolution calling upon the United States Congress to
review the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act of 2000.
| |
Zoning laws have been used in the County time
and time again to discriminate against and burden
the religious exercise of an identifiable group
that constitutes a substantial minority of the
population: Hasidic Jews. In that respect, Rockland
County is different in my experience from any
other county in the country. This specific demographic,
with their unique culture, worship and education,
often clashes with the rest of the population
and land use goals. All too often, the response
is that if their way of life is different, they
should go elsewhere. RLUIPA should not be used
as a sword, some say, since it was meant as a
shield. This kind of hyperbole is not helpful.
Either religious exercise is protected or it is
not. . . . .
I urge you to consider the implications for all
of the citizens of Rockland County if this Resolution
passes. If it does, we will make sure that Congress
is also informed about whats really going
on in Rockland, and why RLUIPA is so necessary.
|
Read Mr. Storzers testimony
here.
Read the Journal News article
here.
Lansing, Michigan, (Mar. 9, 2008): Michigan
church petitions Supreme Court for review:
| |
But what constitutes a "substantial burden"
is up for debate, said Roman Storzer, a Washington
D.C.-based lawyer with his own firm that represents
religious groups across the country. "Churches
and mosques and synagogues occupy a special place
in our society," he said. "When you
have disasters or there is a need, they open their
doors. They provide social services to the needy,
and they are a great benefit to society. In return,
for many, many decades, municipalities have reciprocated
by granting them leeway in regard to zoning issues."
But the climate regarding development has changed.
Today, "people are opposed to development
of any kind near them," Storzer said. The
law [RLUIPA], he said, gives religious communities
an opportunity to challenge zoning decisions and
requires municipalities to "give a real reason
for the denial."
|
Higher power:
Okemos church case heads to top U.S. court, Kathleen
Lavey, Lansing State Journal.
Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post reports
on a Calvert County church's legal victory:
| |
In a test of wills, church vs. state, the church
wins the first round. . . . "The government
needs a very good reason to shut down a church,"
said Roman P. Storzer, a District lawyer who represents
religious organizations in religious land-use
cases.
|
Judge
Rejects Attempt to Close Huntingtown Church Pantry, Center,
Christy Goodman, Washington Post C4 (Mar. 2, 2008).
Response to Walkersville Editorial:
| |
Your Feb. 13 editorial ("Let it be")
recommends that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
and David Moxley give up in their attempt to use
the 224-acre parcel in Walkersville as a mosque
for a few dozen families and their annual Jalsa
Salana event. . . . Are our fundamental freedoms
so cheap that they can be set aside because it
may take a few minutes longer to get home from
work once a year? . . . Who actually believes
that the introduction of an amendment banning
places ofworship from the agricultural zone two
days after the AMC's presentation was mere coincidence?
The Constitution and civil rights laws protect
the AMC and all of us against actions like these,
just as they protect all of us from denials of
other fundamental rights. Should it have been
said that African-Americans being denied the vote
"let it be?" Or that women denied job
opportunities should "let it be?" Or
that disabled individuals denied access to government
buildings should "let it be?"
|
Column,
Roman Storzer, Frederick News Post (Feb. 24, 2008).
Baltimore, Md (Feb. 18, 2008): The Daily Record
reports on religious institutions and zoning laws:
| |
Roman P. Storzer, a Washington, D.C., lawyer
who represents religious groups in RLUIPA litigation,
said he believes Maryland has seen few cases because
it is a relatively densely populated state. City-dwellers
tend to be used to diversity and more tolerant
of minority religions, he said.
I think that exhibits a general tolerance
toward religious institutions in this state, and
in most cases towns and counties realize the importance
of religion and religious institutions in public
life and treat them with respect, said Storzer,
of Storzer & Greene PLLC. There are,
of course, exceptions.
In those cases,
its good that there are constitutional and
statutory protections that prevent discrimination
and burdensome restriction
The other interesting thing is that in the
great majority of these cases, my clients are
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, exactly the kind
of minority that have been targeted in the past
and the reason Congress passed this legislation,
he said. Thats indicative of the fact
that there truly is discrimination going on.
.
|
Religious
institutions claim federal law trumps local zoning and
land-use codes, Caryn Tamber, The Daily Record.
Lawrence, N.Y. (Feb. 14, 2008): Another RLUIPA
success story for S&G client:
| |
So, disagreements over new shuls still do arise
and need to be resolved. To that end, last week
the zoning board of the Village of Lawrenceafter
months of analysis, deliberation, and consultation
on the matterconsented to allow a new shul,
Congregation Heichel Dovid, to shortly begin functioning
on a daily basis. The shul had previously been
granted permission to operate on Shabbos and yom
tov as well as on several additional days on the
Jewish calendar.
|
A
New Shul Story, Larry Gordon, 5 Towns Jewish
Times.
Walkersville, Md. (Feb. 13, 2008): Local paper
editorializes on AMC project:
| |
We have suggested earlier that there may well
be some anti-Muslim sentiment in Walkersville.
That would not make Walkersville any different
than many, if not most, other places
Storzer says a challenge to the decision could
be made on federal and state constitutional issues
or via the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act. Perhaps, but even if the AMC were
able to successfully challenge the zoning board
ruling, we believe, after all that has transpired,
that it would be a flawed decision for them to
move forward with their plans for this religious
center.
|
Let
it be, Frederick News Post
Washington, D.C. (Feb. 8, 2008): The Washington
Post reports on the AMC conflict:
| |
"This conflict has been defined from day
one by a desire to keep a Muslim group out of
the area," attorney Roman Storzer said in
a statement.
It is unconstitutional to make land-use decisions
on religious or racial grounds, so the town could
deny the sect's proposal only if it identified
legitimate concerns about traffic, infrastructure
or planning.
|
Frederick
Town Board Rejects Mosque Plan, Philip Rucker.
Landowner's
attorney considering legal options, Gina Gallucci,
Frederick News Post.
Town
votes to ban Muslim development, David Dishneau, Washington
Times.
Lawyer
Calls Maryland Town's Decision to Bar Muslim Group From
Gatherings 'Discriminatory', Fox News.
Lawrence, N.Y. (Feb. 8, 2008): The Village
of Lawrence, New York, granted S&G client Congregation
Heichel Dovid a variance for its synagogue over the objections
of organized community opposition. As this Firm informed
the Village,
| |
The denial of the parking variance, or the limitation
of the parking variance only to Sabbath services
and Holy Day observance, would violate the Congregations
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution, the New York
Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), and
New Yorks civil rights statutes. Such action
would expose the Village to years of litigation,
potentially millions of dollars in damages and
attorneys fees, together with a substantial
likelihood of eventually allowing the use.
|

Walkersville, Md. (Feb. 7, 2008): Walkersville Board
of Appeals rejects Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's application:
| |
On February 7, 2008, the Walkersville Board
of Appeals rejected the application of the Ahmadiyya
Muslim Community ("AMC") to use a 224-acreparcel
of land as a place of worship In agriculturally
zoned land that permits such uses by special exception.
The Board's deliberations suggested that it was
adopting a position that locating on Route 194
was inappropriate for the mosque, even though
the State Highway Administration did not list
any objections to the plan.
"The Board's decision is both irrational
and discriminatory," said attorney Roman
Storzer. "Irrational because the suggestion
that locating on a smaller country road is better
than a major arterial makes no sense from a land
use perspective. Discriminatory because this conflict
has been defined from day one by a desire to keep
a Muslim group out of the area."
|
Press
Release (Feb. 7, 2008); Walkersville
Board Votes Down Muslim Recreation Center,
NBC
(Feb. 7, 2008)
Walkersville, Md (Feb. 7, 2008): S&G informs
Town of implications of religious freedom law if it excludes
Muslim congregation.
| |
David W. Moxley, owner of the Nicodemus Farm,
has retained the services of Storzer and Greene,
a New York and Washington, D.C. firm that specializes
in the statute, known as RLUIPA. Storzer outlined
the statute for the board on Jan. 15, and the
appeals board on Jan. 16 asked for an
in-depth workshop from O'Connor.
One aspect of the statute that Storzer spelled
out, called the "equal terms" provision,
states that governments cannot treat non-religious
gatherings
more favorably than religious gatherings. "The
entire focus of this hearing has been on the one
weekend a year event," Storzer said. "And
we all know the town has other large events that
are hosted here annually."
|
Executive
session expected on center, Jeremy Hauck,
The Gazette (Jan. 24, 2008).
| |
The valiant efforts of those who want to keep
the Muslims out may not count for much in the
end. Moxley attorney Roman Storzer cited case
after case to support his arguments, including
Marks v City of Chesapeake, where a court
held that a local government "may not adopt
the discriminatory biases of their residential
population."
Which is, in part, why residents carefully sidestepped
the talk of Muslims, talk that figured prominently
in earlier discussions.
Since opponents organized into the for-profit
Citizens of Walkersville and procured the talents
of a local disability rights lawyer, they've toned
down the rhetoric, but too little too late. Their
choice of spokesperson doesn't bode well for their
image, either. Spotlight-loving Steve Berryman,
a Dearbought resident with children in Walkersville
schools, is not shy about taking credit for the
bloviated anti-Muslim creeds, and photos of hishome-security
gun collection that he publishes on the web...
Walkersville's not so different from other small
towns feeling invaded by immigrants and overdevelopment.
When fear of the unknown is added to the mix,
especially one that walks and talks like our country's
sworn enemy, some opposition is inevitable.
But that doesn't make it right.
|
The
'M-word', Katherine Heerbrandt, Frederick
News Post (Jan. 23, 2008).
Bridgewater, N.J.: The Star-Ledger reports
on the
Hindu Temple and Cultural Center litigation:
| |
A plan to significantly expand the temple's
complex, located off Route 206 at Old Farm Road,
has been stalled before the township board ofadjustment
for nearly four years. The most controversial
element of the plan, a bid to more than double
the size of the temple's 9,800-square-foot cultural
center, has been rejected by the board three times.
The temple has argued the cultural center is
integral to the practice of Hinduism. In July
2007, the temple [represented by S&G] filed
a federal case claiming violations of the First
and 14th Amendments, as well as the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the
temple would be allowed to build a 20,500-square-foot
cultural center, but would have to agree to a
10-year moratorium on expansion.
|
"Hindu temple close to settling suit", Page
2
The Star-Ledger (Jan. 29, 2008).
White Plains, N.Y. (Jan. 26, 2008): Congregation opposes
Village of Pomona's motion to dismiss lawsuit:
| |
The congregation's response, filed last week,
says that the village's motion to dismiss is an
effort to direct the court's attention away from
its complaint, ignoring "the true undercurrent
of what is happening in Pomona, where a new administration
was elected on a platform ofkeeping the plaintiffs
out of the 'close knit community.'"
One of the village's arguments in asking the
judge to dismiss the case was that the congregation
rushed into court to file the lawsuit without
tryingto use available avenues under the village's
zoning law.
In the opposition filing, the congregation disagreed
with the argument, saying the village is telling
Tartikov to "apply for administrative relief
that doesn't exist." "This case is about
the plaintiff's right to live in a community free
from discriminatory, burdensome, and unreasonableregulations,
and free to engage in their constitutionally protected
religious speech, worship, and education,"
the document stated.
|
Rabbinical
college asks judge to keep suit against Pomona alive,
Akiko Matsuda, The Journal News
(Jan. 26, 2008).
Professor Patricia E. Salkin's (Director of
the Government Law Center of Albany Law School) take on
the federal court's decision in favor of S&G client
Albanian Associated Fund against the Township of Wayne,
N.J. on its attempt "taking" of the AAF's mosque
property:
| |
The issue the District Court did resolve, however,
was whether RLUIPA even applied to the facts in
this case. The Township attempted to frame their
actions as a condemnation proceeding, arguing
that RLUIPA does not apply based on cases from
other jurisdictions holding that eminent domain
is not a land use. The District Court . . . determined
that [the] RLUIPA challenge in this case "does
not go to the actual taking, but rather to the
implementation of the open space plan which is
a land use regulation." . . .
Now that the Court has determined that RLUIPA
does apply, I predict a settlement will likely
be in cards. The Township will otherwise have
to take a chance that a Court will find the preservation
of environmentally sensitive areas a compelling
governmental interest and that this is the least
restrictive means of dealing with it. Since the
facts are in dispute, unless and until it is sorted
out by the trial court, the opinion indicates
that it is unclear what the true motivations of
the Township might be.
|
Township
Open Space Plan is a Land Use Regulation Subject to RLUIPA,
Law of the Land
Walkersville, Md (Jan. 17): Organized opposition
to Mosque continues...
| |
The Citizens for Walkersville testimony continued.
Jeff Schouw presented a slide show and video showing
Jalsa Salana participants in other countries.
Roman P. Storzer, an attorney representing Moxley,
asked Schouw why he played the video, which contained
flags, a march and voices screaming in a foreign
language. Schouw said it demonstrated what could
occur in Walkersville if the special exception
is granted.
|
Dozens
testify, most cite reasons Muslim retreat center should
be denied by Jeremy Hauck, Jeremy Hauck, Business
Gazette (Jan. 17, 2008)
| |
WALKERSVILLE
-- When Roman Storzer broached the subject of religious
intolerance at a Board of Zoning Appeals hearing
Friday, he was quickly silenced... |
Board
steers clear of religious questions, Gina Gallucci,
Frederick News-Post(Jan. 12, 2008)
Walkersville, Md. (Jan. 3, 2008): Retreat centers
application to be heard starting January 8:
| |
Moxleys lawyer, Roman P. Storzer, of Washington,
D.C.-based Storzer and Greene, is ready to take
the town to court if either the Zoning Board of
Appeals or the Board of Commissioners denies the
Muslims the right to build a retreat center on
the farmland, he said.
If the action is taken to prevent
this group from locating there, and litigation
ensues, then the towns administration is
going to have to face a jury of its peers and
be able to answer for their actions, Storzer
said in a telephone interview.
|
Read Here
FOXNEWS: Maryland
Politician Fights Groups Plans to Build Mosque on
Farmland (Nov. 2, 2007): Discussing Walkersville,
Marylands continued efforts to prevent a Mosque
from locating within its jurisdiction:
| |
Mayor Ralph Whitmore
said, some residents are "apprehensive of Muslims."
Tensions are still there. We have a lot of people
here who haven't forgotten 9/11."
Whitmore says people who have loved ones fighting
in Iraq and Afghanistan have reservations about
Muslims in the community, and fear remains after
the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "We're
not a very diverse community," the mayor
said.
Roman Storzer, a Washington lawyer who represents
David Moxley, the owner of the farmland, calls
the issue hostile. Moxley is seeking to sell the
farmland to the group. "Tender or not, this
is one of the most blatant examples of hostility
to a particular religious group that I have ever
seen," Storzer said.
|
State
dismisses NAACP civil-rights complaint against Spring
Valley medical clinic, Journal-News (Nov. 1, 2007):
| |
The NAACP filed
the complaint in September 2006, claiming among
other things that the clinic's practice of closing
on Saturdays to accommodate the Jewish Sabbath was
discriminatory.
Roman P. Storzer, a lawyer for the clinic from
the firm Storzer & Greene, said his clients
were happy with the decision.
"They are very pleased with the outcome
and they're looking forward to getting back to
what they do best, which is serving the community,"
Storzer said today.
|
UPDATE
(Nov. 2, 2007):
| |
The National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People filed the
complaint in August 2006, characterizing as discriminatory
the clinic's practice of closing on Saturdays to
accommodate the Jewish Sabbath. The clinic's operators
are Jewish.
"My clients are interested in serving the
community to the best of their capacities and
... it's a determination that they have to make
on the merits of the issue, not based on some
spurious complaint by the NAACP," [Storzer]
said.
|
Peekskill, New York (Oct. 31, 2007): New York
State Division of Human Rights dismissed the NAACP of
Spring Valleys complaint against S&G client
Ben Gilman Spring Valley Medical & Dental Clinic (alleging
that closing the clinic on the Jewish Sabbath was discriminatory)
determining:
| |
After investigation,
and following opportunity for review of related
information and evidence by the named parties, the
Division has determined that there is NO PROBABLE
CAUSE to believe that the respondents have engaged
in or are engaging in the unlawful discriminatory
practice complained of. |
The Clinic defended against the charges, stating that
New York civil rights laws do not prohibit closing on
the Sabbath, and the First Amendment protects the Clinics
right to do so.
| |
This complaint should never have been filed,
said Roman P. Storzer, who represented the Clinic
pro bono. The NAACP has done admirable work
in pursuit of civil rights. However, religious
accommodation benefits, rather than takes away
from the laudable goal of diversity in our community.
|
More information here
Walkersville, Md.: Meeting of Town officials
with "citizens group" opposed to Muslim worship
center prompts request from landowner; Storzer & Greene
prepared to seek redress of any legal violations resulting
from Town's actions,
Media
Release (October 23, 2007):
| |
This is one of the most
blatant examples of hostility to a Particular religious
group that I have ever seen," said Roman P.
Storzer, attorney for Mr. Moxley. "This is
exactly why Congress passed the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act. Zoning permits
should not be denied and> ordinances should not
be passed to keep a particular religious group out,
just because they may 'change the culture' or are
perceived as different or unfamiliar to the community. |
Read about the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's plight in
the International Herald
Tribune and the Washington
Post.
Court decision
upholds right to build church, Roger Severino, Grand
Valley Advance (Aug. 7, 2007) (letter to the editor):
| |
Thus, the Society won
the right to build its church, as it originally
envisioned, on its land despite the Township's best
(and illegal) efforts to block its construction.
Speaking more broadly, the judge upheld the constitutional
principle that believers, not bureaucrats, get
to decide what their church is supposed to look
like.
|
Read about the Great Lakes Society's RLUIPA victory here
and here
Judge sides with allergen-free church, Matt
Vande Bunte, Grand Rapids Press (July 26, 2007): Reporting
on S&G client Great Lakes Society's First Amendment,
Equal Protection & RLUIPA victory against Georgetown
Township, Michigan:
| |
In a recent opinion,
Ottawa County Circuit Judge Calvin Bosman agreed
the township violated the church's religious freedom
under the Constitution and a Religious Land Use
Act signed into law in 2000 by then-President Clinton.
"Judge Bosman has done a great deal to help
us rebuild our reputation," [Pastor John] Cheetham
said. "He acknowledged that we were trying
to build a special building to cater to people with
chemical sensitivity. For us, it's an important
part of Christ's mission ... to recognize the special
needs of people."
Bosman ruled the proposed building qualifies
as a church because people would gather there
to worship. The township's opposition obstructs
the church's religious freedom, he wrote. "There
is no dispute that the members of (the society)
are physically unable to attend worship services
in any conventional church," Bosman wrote.
"The (township's) action effectively prevents
the members ... from worshipping at all.
|
Read the story here
Lead Counsel Roman Storzer, who argued the case on June
14, is joined by The
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and John Karafa
of the firm McCroskey, Feldman, Cochrane & Brock,
P.L.C.
Read The Becket Fund's Press Release here
"A yeshiva? Not in our village,"
Michal Lando, Jerusalem Post, reporting on the
Rabbinical College matter in Rockland County, New York:
| |
The college chose Pomona
in part because it is close to Monsey, another haredi
outpost, where students and their families will
have access to facilities such as kosher supermarkets
and yeshivas for their children.
Before the Holocaust, each Orthodox community
had its own beit din religious court that handled
issues such as marriage, divorce and financial
disputes. Since then, the number of courts has
dwindled drastically, and so has the number of
rabbis qualified to sit on them. . . .
. . . Once there will be more rabbinical courts
and judges, in the community, I'm sure there will
be more Jewish people, even not religious, who
will start going to rabbinical courts to be judged
according to the Halacha."
The college is gearing up for what it expects
will be a heated fight for the right to develop
the land. It has hired Roman Storzer, an expert
on the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA), which states that municipal
regulations cannot impose a substantial burden
on religious practices. It also hired John Stepanovich,
who has worked on similar cases in Airmont, New
York.
|
Read the story here
Albanian Muslims seek OK for site in Wayne, Andrea
Alexander, The Record (July 26, 2007):
| |
Attorneys for the Paterson-based
Albanian group, however, argued the federal law
applied because the town wanted to take the property
to enforce its land-use policies to preserve open
space. The attorneys for the Albanian group also
are asking Sheridan to find that preserving open
space is not a compelling government interest that
trumps the freedom of religious exercise. . . .
A Justice Department official appeared in court
Wednesday to back the Albanian groups' discrimination
claims. Ryan Lee, a Justice Department attorney,
argued that there was "circumstantial evidence
of discriminatory intent'' in the township's actions.
|
Read the story here
Justice
Department Supports Muslim Group In Its RLUIPA Lawsuit
Howard Friedman, Religious Clause (July 25, 2007):
| |
The Justice Department
argued, however, that the township's deliberate
prolonging of the application process for a permit
amounted to the kind of discrimination prohibited
by RLUIPA. |
Temple expansion fight lands in U.S. court, Kara
Richardson, The Courier News (July 25, 2007):
| |
BRIDGEWATER -- Members
of the Hindu Temple & Cultural Center are going
to a higher authority -- federal court -- with a
lawsuit seeking expansion of their temple.
Attorneys for the center filed the lawsuit Monday
in U.S. District Court, Newark.
The federal court is a more appropriate venue to
settle civil-rights claims," said Roman P.
Storzer, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney representing
the temple. Storzer plans to fight the Board of
Adjustment, which denied expansion plans, on two
fronts: the First Amendment (freedom of religion)
and the Religious Land Use Protection Act, a federal
statute that allows the right to practice religion
to override some land-use laws. |
Read more about the Temple's efforts in Hindu
temple
trying new legal remedy, Nyier Abdou, The Star-Ledger
(May 17, 2007).
S&G argues Albanian Associated Fund case in
Newark (July 25, 2007): Roman Storzer today argued
before federal District Judge Peter Sheridan that the
Township of Wayne's attempted seizure of the AAF's land,
slated for a mosque, is unconstitutional. (S&G had
previously obtained a preliminary injunction preventing
the taking.) Also joining the argument was an attorney
from the United States Department of Justice, which
submitted a brief amicus curiae, arguing that there
was sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that
"the Township commenced eminent domain proceedings
against the Mosque to thwart the Mosque's application
for a CUP and thereby appease residents hostile to the
Mosque." A decision is expected in September.
Bridgewater, N.J. (July 23, 2007):
S&G filed suit today on behalf of the Hindu Temple
and Cultural Society of USA against the Township of Bridgewater,
New Jersey, for its repeated refusal to allow the Temple
to build a cultural center on the Temple's 23 acre property
in order to house its religious programs. Even though
a majority of the Township's zoningboard voted to permit
the cultural center, a supermajority vote was required.
The action was filed in federal district court in order
topreserve its rights under the First Amendment and the
Religious Land Use andInstitutionalized Persons Act of
2000 ("RLUIPA"). More information soon.
S&G client Great Lakes Society victorious
in civil rights lawsuit against Georgetown Township, Michigan
(July 23, 2007): Court rules that Township violated church's
rights under the federal Free Exercise and Equal Protection
Clauses, the Michigan Constitution, RLUIPA, and the church's
right to freedom of association. More information soon.
U.S. backs lawsuit against Wayne,"
Andrea Alexander, The Record (July 24, 2007):The U.S.
Department of Justice said the township's actions against
the Paterson-based Albanian Associated Fund bore the "classic
trademarks'' of discrimination. In court papers, the government
said there was reason to conclude the township tried to
take the property for open space to stop members of the
fund from building a mosque and community center in the
township. . . .
| |
"The Albanian Fund
simply wants to be left alone," said Roman
Storzer, the attorney representing the group in
federal court. "They bought a property where
a church is a permitted use, and the township has
been doing everything in their power to prevent
them from building a mosque.''
|
Read the story here
United States Department of Justice files
brief supporting S&G client Albanian Associated Fund
and Imam Arun Polozani in RLUIPA lawsuit (July 19,
2007): The Department of Justice criticizes Township of
Wayne, N.J.s arguments in attempted condemnation
of religious organizations land.
| |
The environmental nature
of Mosques land was of no specific concern
to the Township until after the Mosque filed its
CUP application. As mentioned above, the Township
did not deem the Mosques land too environmentally
sensitive to be developed in 1987 or 1994. However,
once the Mosque submitted a CUP application, the
Township became a bundle of activity.
Id. There is evidence that shows the Planning Board
departed from its usual practice and decided to
withhold approval of the CUP until all outstanding
matters were resolved, and twenty hearings and three
years were not sufficient to permit it to render
a resolution on the merits. The Township enacted
an Open Space Ordinance and formed an Open Space
Committee that, contrary to the directive of the
Ordinance, operated under a rule of thumb that targeted
the Mosques land for acquisition. The Township
Council subsequently commenced eminent domain proceedings
to take the Mosques land for open space, even
though it has never before condemned property for
this reason. Like the court in Cottonwood, the finder
of fact could conclude that the Townships
claim that it commenced eminent domain proceedings
to preserve the Mosques land for open space
rings hollow and that in reality the
Township was simply trying to keep [the Mosque]
out of the [Township], or at least from the use
of its own land. |
Read the United States brief here.
The case against the Township of Wayne continues, with
a hearing scheduled for July 25, 2007.
Rabbinical College files suit against discriminatory
zoning laws in Pomona, N.Y
| |
We need to stop the Village
of Pomona, and municipalities across the country,
from using their zoning power as a tool to control
unpopular religious groups," Storzer said. |
Journal News story here
Newsday story here
Brooklyn Daily Eagle story here.
Federal court
rules for Baptist school in RLUIPA case (Baltimore, Md.):
On April 6, 2007, federal judge J. Frederick Motz ruled
against Anne Arundel County in its attempt to dismiss
the Riverdale Baptist Church's lawsuit, which describes
various civil rights violations caused by the County's
land use regulations.
| |
The County's history
of targeting and ill treatment of Riverdale Baptist
Church's attempt to build a school offering a Christian-based
education raises serious and important legal questions,"
said Roman P. Storzer, who argued the case for the
Church. "The Church will get its day in court. |
More information about the lawsuit can be found here.
Proceedings continue.
Federal court
upholds settlement in Airmont, N.Y. case (White Plains,
N.Y.): On March 29, 2007, Judge Stephen C. Robinson
rejected the Village of Airmont's attempt to back out
of its obligations entered into under a 2005 settlement
with Congregation Mischknois Lavier Yakov, allowing it
to build a religious school. The Congregation was assisted
by both Storzer & Greene, P.L.L.C. and by the United
States Department of Justice, which filed its own
action against Airmont for violating RLUIPA. The court
held:
| |
That the Airmont Defendants
now dislike the consequences of something they previously
agreed to is not a ground upon which this Court
can or would vacate a judgment. |
S&G congratulates John G. Stepanovich of
Lentz, Stepanovich & Bergethon, P.L.C., lead counsel
for the Congregation. Read the court's decision here
Faith and zoning, Editorial, The Record (Nov.
3, 2006):
| |
The Albanian group first
filed a development application in late 2002 and
has since gone through numerous Planning Board hearings.
Then suddenly this spring the township announced
it would try to buy the site through eminent domain...
Wayne can argue that the township does not have
bias. It also does not have an Albanian mosque.
|
Read
the editorial here
Federal Court issues injunction preventing the taking
of religious property (Newark, N.J.): On November
1, 2006, the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted a preliminary injunction protecting
mosque property from eminent domain proceedings. Judge
Peter G. Sheridan ordered the Township of Wayne, N.J.
to cease efforts to seize the AlbanianAssociated Fund's
11-acre site on November 1, 2006.
| |
"Critically important
constitutional rights are at stake here," said
Roman P. Storzer, attorney for AAF, "Protecting
open space is a laudable goal, but it should not
be used as a pretense for appeasing local hostility
to a minority group." |
Press release available here.
The Record story available here.
Storzer and Greene Defend Jewish Sabbath Observance
On October 19, Storzer & Greene filed
a response defending the Ben Gilman Medical and
Dental Clinic in Spring Valley, NY from a complaint
filed in the New York Human Rights Commission by the
president of the local NAACP chapter. The complaint
alleges that the Clinic discriminates because it closes
on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, and remains open on
Sundays. Read the Press
Release here.
United States Department of Justice sides with Bikur
Cholim, sues Village of Suffern
On September 26, 2006,
the federal government filed a lawsuit against the
Village of Suffern for violations of the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The
Complaint states:
| |
Suffern's denial of the
variance application substantially burdens the religious
exercise of Orthodox Jews who need to visit the
sick in Suffern while observing religious proscriptions
against driving on the Sabbath and other Holy Days. |
In its Complaint, the Department of Justice requests the
court to declare that the denial of Storzer & Greene
client Bikur Cholim's variance application violates RLUIPA,
and prevent the Village from substantially burdening Bikur
Cholim's religious exercise.
Mr. Storzer will be appearing in federal court on October
4 to seek a preliminary injunction permitting Bikur
Cholim to continue operating.
Suffern
Is Sued for Religious Discrimination After Village Rejects
an Orthodox Lodging, New York Times (Sept. 27,
2006)
U.S.
Sues to Allow N.Y. Sabbath House, New York Times
(Sept. 26, 2006).
Also in Forbes,
Fox
News, Jerusalem
Post, New
York Sun, Houston
Chronicle, Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, Los
Angeles Times, The
Guardian, Washington
Post, others.
Suffern
accused of discriminating against Jewish group 'on basis
of religion, The Journal News (Sept. 27, 2006).
Suffern
sued over Sabbath house, Times Herald-Record
(Sept. 27, 2006).
U.S.
sues Rockland village for denying variance to Orthodox
group, Newsday (Sept. 26, 2006).
Federal court rules for Temple in overtime pay case,
dismisses lawsuit
On September 22, 2006, federal judge Joseph Bianco dismissed
a lawsuit brought by a religious employee of S&G client
Hindu Temple Society of North America for various alleged
labor violations. The court held:
| |
If this Article III requirement
is not met, then, no matter how interesting or significant
the legal issue presented, the Court has no jurisdiction
and is not permitted to proceed with the case. |
Parameswaran v. Mysorekar, No. 05-CV-3162 (E.D.N.Y. 2006).
Storzer & Greene files amicus curiae Brief in Prison
Fellowship Ministries appeal
On September 22, 2006, Storzer and Greene, together
with of counsel Richard W. Garnett, Lilly Endowment Associate
Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, filed
a brief on behalf of the Catholic League for Civil
and Religious Rights arguing that a federal court erred
in engaging in a theological discussion about the relationship
between evangelical Christianity and Catholicism:
| |
We agree entirely with
the courts observation that it lacks theological
expertise and, like the court below, we endorse
without reservation James Madisons statement
that religion is, for the honor of America,
perfectly free and unshackled. The government has
no jurisdiction over it. Under the Constitution
of the United States, the institutions of religion
and government are separate, not to constrain religion,
and not because the Framers feared faith, but in
order to protect religion, and to check the ambitions
and powers of government. Nothing in this Brief
is intended to suggest that the courts of the United
States ought not to protect religious freedom by
protecting the freedom of believers and of the Church
from government interference. But this Courts
consideration of the work of InnerChange and Prison
Fellowship Ministries should be undertaken without
the taint of the district courts homebrewed
theological analysis of that work as narrow, prejudiced,
or anti-Catholic, when in fact its is quite the
opposite: open-minded, generous, and ecumenically
cooperative.
|
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, App. No. 06-2741
(8th Cir.). Read the district court's decision here
Storzer & Greene files brief in Maryland Court
of Appeals protecting religious institutions
As co-counsel with The
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the firm filed
a brief urging reversal of the same-sex marriage decision
in Maryland's highest court. The brief argues that the
decision below will have profound impact on the employment,
housing, public accommodation, and free speech rights
of religious institutions.
"God's Work," Colleen DeBaise,
SmartMoney (Apr. 18, 2006)
| |
Religious groups are
more likely to run into problems when they look
before they leap, says Roman Storzer, a Washington,
D.C., lawyer who represents religious institutions.
"Churches are not as sophisticated as commercial
entities," he says. "They're used to preaching
to the community, not doing taxes and payroll."
He recently represented a Hindu temple in Flushing,
N.Y., which set up a canteen to serve food to worshippers.
Last summer, a worker at the canteen sued the temple
for overtime wages. While the worker ultimately
withdrew the suit, it's an example of the obstacles
that might come with the territory, he says. |
Read the story here.
The First
Amendment Center's story
on Albanian Associated Fund v. Township of Wayne.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hands down resounding
RLUIPA victory
In a much-anticipated case involving the right of
a religious institution to obtain a land use permit
in order to build a place of worship, the
Court of Appeals decided on August 1, 2006 that
a county cannot deny a CUP to a Sikh organization if
that denial would "impose a significantly great
restriction or onus upon" its religious exercise.
The Court found that this particular denial would in
fact do so, based upon its findings that:
| |
(1) The County's broad
reasons given for its tandem denials could easily
apply to all future applications by Guru Nanak;
and (2) that Guru Nanak readily agreed to every
mitigation measure suggested by the Planning Division,
but the County, without explanation, found such
cooperation insufficient. |
As Director of Litigation for The
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Mr. Storzer drafted
its amicus
brief supporting the Sikh Society. Several of the
arguments proposed in the brief were adopted by the
Court of Appeals, including the proposition that RLUIPA
makes explicit certain protections already inherent
in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (including
the legal requirement that a denial of a discretionary
land use permit must survive strict scrutiny judicial
review), and that the denial of a land use permit may
be substantially burdensome on religious exercise, even
though the initial requirement of such a permit is not.
Muslim Association sues Township of Wayne, N.J.
for attempted seizure of its land
On July 17, 2006, the Albanian Associated Fund, which
owns property in Wayne Township that it has been attempted
to build on for four years, filed suit in federal district
court in order to prevent the taking of its property.
| |
Media Release,
Storzer & Greene/The Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty (July 17, 2006)
Muslim
group sues town over effort to build mosque, Newsday
(July 18, 2006)
| |
"AAF is
not asking for special consideration,"
said one of their lawyers, Roman P. Storzer.
"This group is entitled to the same protections
of the law as any church or synagogue." |
Wayne
sued by Muslim group, The West Milford Messenger
(July 27, 2006)
Muslim
Group Fights for Mosque, The Record (July
19, 2006):
| |
"The township
is trying to accommodate the hostilities of
the local residents in their efforts to prevent
the mosque from locating here," Storzer
said in an interview." |
Muslim
group sues N.J. town over effort to build mosque,
First Amendment Center (July 19, 2006)
Muslim
Group Sues Town Over Effort to Build Mosque, WNBC
(July 19, 2006)
Mosques
Sues Wayne Township (NJ) Over Attempted Land-Grab,
Al-Jazeerah (July 19, 2006)
Muslim
group sues town over effort to build mosque, WABC-TV
(July 18, 2006)
|
"US:
Don't close Shabbat House!" Ynetnews
(July 11, 2006):
| |
Nathan
J. Diament, director of the Union's Institute who
was involved in working with Congress to have RLUIPA
enacted stated that "the purpose of the RLUIPA
statute was to ensure that zoning codes could not
be a veiled tool for religious discrimination. The
fact that under the code the Shabbat House could
not be located anywhere in Suffern is the best proof
that the local officials want no such facility to
exist. To do so is to deny the religious needs of
the hospitalized patients and their loved ones.
We trust that the court will rule in favor of the
plaintiffs." |
Numerous
Orthodox Jewish organizations support Bikur Cholim in
federal court
On
July 5, 2006, a brief amicus curiae was filed in support
of Storzer & Greene client Bikur Cholim on behalf
of the
National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs,
Agudas Harabonim, Agudath Israel, National
Council of Young Israel, the Rabbinical Alliance of
America, the Rabbinical
Council of America, Torah
Umesorah, and the Union
of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. The brief
demonstrates that
| |
The contention made in
this case by the Village of Suffern - i.e., that
the service performed by the existence of the Shabbos
House is merely a "convenience" made available
to hospital visitors and is not within the constitutional
or statutory definition of "exercise of religion"
- is alarming to the Orthodox Jewish community.
Hospital visits and Sabbath observance are not matters
of "convenience"; they are at the heat
of traditional Jewish religious observance. |
More information about the case can be found here.
Religious school successfully defends against Title
VII lawsuit
On June 7, 2006, the federal Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed
a decision dismissing a sex discrimination lawsuit
brought by a parochial school teacher based on her dismissal
for abortion rights advocacy. Congratulations to the Becket
Fund for a hard-won appeal. (Mr. Storzer had been
co-counsel in the successful representation of the Ursuline
Academy before the District Court.)
Firm defends church against eminent domain
action
On May 15, 2006,
Storzer & Greene PLLC submitted an appeal brief in
defense of their client Faith Temple Church against the
Town of Brighton, New York's attempted taking of their
property. Also joining in the lawsuit are the following
entities, all of whom submitted amicus briefs in support
of the proposition that municipalities must pass strict
judicial review if taking church property substantially
burdens religious exercise:
United
States Department of Justice (brief)
The
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (brief)
American
Center for Law and Justice
The firm is co-counsel with Nixon Peabody LLP in Faith
Temple's appeal.
|
Feb
1, 2010: S&G Case to be subject of Harvard Pluralism
Project documentary. Filming has started on
a documentary examining the experience of the Buddhist
Education Center of North America in Virginia Beach,
Virginia. The City had sought to restrict the Vietnamese
Zen Buddhist congregation from conducting its religious
practice at its home in southern Virginia Beach.
Virginia Wesleyan College Professor Steven Emmanuel
interviewed Robert Greene about the litigation and
S&Gs experience in advocating for religious
liberty on behalf of many faiths including Baptists,
Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Moslems, Native Americans
and many others.
Nov. 17, 2009: S&G
quoted in U.S. News & World Report, Moves
to Seize Mosque Spark Outrage
New York, N.Y. (Sept. 21-22,
2009): Robert Greene represents the Philadelphia
Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
at the National Council of the Churches of Christ
Board of Governors Meeting. The
National Council of Churches is the organization
of Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, Evangelical,
historic African American and Living Peace churches
including 45 million people in more than
100,000 local congregations in communities across
the nation. It includes many national Baptist organizations
as well as the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, the United Methodist Church,
the Moravian Church, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.,
Quakers and many other faith communions. It has
been a leading force in ecumenical cooperation in
the United States for over half a century.
American Bar Association:
Excerpt from "The
RLUIPA Reader: Religious Land Uses, Zoning, and
the Courts.
| |
Although inconsistencies continue to abound
in this area of law, a pattern has emerged
from the dozens of cases that have made
their way to the court system. This is the
general rule that in an area of law with
fewif anyestablished practical
rules, courts are aware of the equities
in cases brought before them and tend to
steer the results accordingly. When a church
attempts in good faith to resolve legitimate
municipal interests in its effort to build
a place of worship, its claims are generally
favored, especially when such attempts are
unreasonably rebuffed by the municipality.
|
ABA
Book Briefs Blog, July 14, 2009.
Nashville, Tennessee (April
16 & 17, 2009): S&G Provides RLUIPA Training
to Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County
| |
A proactive approach to defending
civil rights is clearly preferable to litigation,
said attorney Roman Storzer. Local
governments need the tools to deal with
potentially controversial religious land
uses in a manner that avoids discrimination
and undue burden.
|
Read S&Gs media
release here, the United States Department of
Justices description
of the related case and settlement, the consent
decree, and more
information
Princeton, N.J. (April 13,
2009): Robert Greene Speaks at Princeton Theological
Seminary.
| |
S&G principal Robert Greene delivered
a lecture on the topic of the Church and
State in the United States this evening
to students at Princeton Theological Seminary.
The talk addressed the religious origins
of the free exercise of religion in the
colonial era, discussing the theories of
Roger Williams, William Penn and other colonial
religious leaders on the religious grounds
for opposing all attempts to compel religious
conformity.
It also discussed the current state of the
law of Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment
Clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution,
focusing on the various difficulties and
opportunities in raising claims that government
regulation substantially burdens religious
exercise.
|
RLUIPA Reader: Religious
Land Uses, Zoning, and the Courts available
for pre-order.
| From
the American Bar Association: This book
provides both a general background of RLUIPA
so that the reader understands the context
in which RLUIPA was passed
by Congress in 2000, as well as a very practical
discussion about RLUIPA litigation from the
perspective of the church (religious land
use applicant) and the |
|
perspective of the
community. Attorneys as well as planners and religious
land use applicants will benefit from reading this
book, which offers information and advice on initiating
a RLUIPA lawsuit, as well as defending a RLUIPA
lawsuit.
Roman Storzer drafted a chapter of the book titled
The Perspective of the Religious Land Use
Applicant. More information about the book
is available
here.
Roman Storzer will join
other religious freedom experts as a judge in the
2009 National Religious Freedom Moot Court on February
6.
| |
This year's problem will deal with issues
regarding the employment decisions of religious
groups in relation to state civil rights
laws. The competition issues will center
on the "ministerial exception"
to employment discrimination laws, and free
exercise issues relating to sexual orientation
discrimination laws.
|
More information available here
RLUIPA Book to be published
in April 2009: RLUIPA Reader: Religious Land
Use, Zoning and the Courts, co-published by
the American Bar Association and the American Planning
Association, is due to be released in mid-April.
Roman Storzer joins other authors in presenting
a chapter on the history, theory, practical application
and problems in current religious land use litigation.
Robert Greene Visits Capitol
Hill on Behalf of Quaker Committee.
On November 13, 2008, Robert Greene visited Senatorial
and Congressional offices today on behalf of the
Friends
Committee on National Legislation, the Quaker
public affairs lobby. Mr. Greene is a member of
the General Committee of FCNL, representing the
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society
of Friends. He is also a representative to the National
Religious Campaign Against Torture, an organization
of clergy and religious leaders of all faiths.
Roman Storzer will be
speaking at the Property Rights Foundation of Americas
twelfth annual National Conference on Private Property
Rights. Mr. Storzer will join speakers from
the Institute for Justice, the National Center for
Public Policy Research and the Cato Institute, among
others, and will be addressing historic preservation
regulations impacting religious institutions. The
conference is being held on October 18, 2008 in
Albany, N.Y. More information available here
S&G is pleased to
welcome its newest attorney, Stuart
Werbin.
Robert Greene will join
Prof. Marci Hamilton and several others in addressing
the New Jersey State League of Municipalities on
November 19, 2008. The panel discussion, The
Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA) Challenges Faced by
Local Government, is part of the NJLMs
93rd
Annual Conference.
Roman Storzer will participate
as a judge in the 2008 National Religious Freedom
Moot Court held at George Washington University
on February 22-23, 2008.
He will join Judges Sutton (6th Circuit) and O'Scannlain
(9th Circuit), Eric W. Treene, special counsel for
religious discrimination at the Civil Rights Division
of the U.S. Department of Justice, and others at
this competition. This years topic focuses
on current controversies involving the military
chaplaincy and implicating the Religion Clauses
and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. More
information available here
Robert Greene named to
National Religious Campaign Against Torture.
Storzer & Greene partner Robert L. Greene has
been named to serve as the representative of the
Princeton Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society
of Friends (Quakers). NRCAT was founded in 2006
and consists of representatives from the Catholic,
Protestant, Orthodox Christian, Evangelical Christian,
Quaker, Unitarian, Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh communities.
NRCAT member organizations include denominations
and faith groups, national religious organizations,
regional religious organizations, and individual
church congregations. Its goal is to ensure that
the United States does not engage in torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of anyone,
without exception.
Robert Greene to speak
on exercise of eminent domain over church property
Storzer & Greene partner Robert L. Greene
will be featured as a speaker at the Lorman Education
seminar on Eminent Domain April 17, 2008 at the
Hyatt Regency in North Brunswick New Jersey. The
seminar is intended for attorneys, developers
and all sorts of land use professionals. Mr. Greene
will speak about S&G's role in several important
cases challenging the right of government to use
eminent domain laws to take the property of churches
and religious organizations. For registration
go to www.lorman.com
Cost
of litigation, Editorial, Journal News
(Aug. 8, 2007):
| |
A [Prof. Marci]
Hamilton-Storzer face-off has occurred many
times before, in the courts and in spirited
law school and American Bar Association debates.
They have had a little point-counterpoint
on this page, with subsequent Community View
columns on the Pomona issue. On the whole,
court cases have tipped overwhelmingly to
Storzer's clients. |
Robert Greene to speak to New
Jersey bar on religion and land use June
20, 2007, Robert L.
Greene will speak today at the New Jersey Bar's
Law Center, 1 Constitution Square in New Brunswick,
New Jersey at a New Jersey Institutive of Continuing
Legal Education seminar on Religion and Land Use.
Mr. Greene will be speaking on federal constitutional
protections of church and religious organization
land use and RLUIPA. Other presentations will focus
on state law issues. Among the subjects on the agenda
are several cases that Storzer & Greene have
been involved in.
NICOLE is a joint project of the
New Jersey Bar Association, Rutgers University
and Seton Hall University. Mr. Greene is a former
adjunct faculty member of Seton Hall's Law School.
On May 18, 2007,
Roman Storzer addressed the American Bar Association's
Section of State and Local Government Law at its
annual Spring
Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The session,
titled "Church, State and Dirt: RLUIPA and
Land Use in 2007 also included speakers Marci
Hamilton, Cardozo Law School, and Daniel P. Dalton,
Tomkiw Dalton, Detroit, Michigan.
| |
Mr. Storzer believes there were and continue
to be very good reasons behind the adoption
of RLUIPA. He does not believe that RLUIPA
gives religious organizations a blank
check to engage in activities free
of land regulation, noting that courts have
consistently indicated RLUIPA is not a free
pass. Storzer believes RLUIPA needs
to be available where facts demonstrate
a community has attempted improperly to
use its zoning powers to keep a religious
organization with different practices and
lifestyles out of a community.
|
Jay T. Squires, RLUIPA
Sparks Spirited Debate in San Juan
November RLUIPA Conference
Mr. Storzer will join
other speakers at the Conference of Village Trustees'
RLUIPA conference in Montebello, N.Y. on November
9.
Mr. Storzer speaks at
Land Use Institute conference
On May 12, 2006, Mr. Storzer addressed a conference
sponsored by the Maryland State Bar, MICPEL, the
University of Maryland School of Law and the University
of Baltimore School of Law on the topic of religious
land use.
"The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000: A Constitutional Response to
Unconstitutional Zoning Practices,"
9 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 929, 945 (2001), co-authored
by Roman Storzer and Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.
Wall Street Journal's Startup Journal, Apr. 25,
2006
Roman
Storzer was quoted in a
Start
Up Journal article about religious organizations
engaging in commercial transactions. |
|
|