The Religious Observance Clauses at issue here do not single out a particular religious sect or denomination for special treatment; rather, they are reasonable accommodations of the employees’ religious beliefs. The Supreme Court “has long recognized that the government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause.” Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 334 (1987) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 713 (2005) (same). The Court has held that “there is room for play in the joints between’ the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, allowing the government to accommodate religion beyond free exercise requirements, without offense to the Establishment Clause.” Cutter, 544 U.S. at 713 (quoting Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 718 (2004)). “There is ample room under the Establishment Clause for ‘benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.”

Here, the District’s enforcement of the Religious Observance Clauses does not amount to an illicit advancement of religion through its own activities and influence; rather, the clauses are self-selecting and allow the teachers and nurses to decide whether to use their leave days for the purpose of observing a particular religious holiday. Moreover, the Religious Observance Clauses do not designate specific religious holidays for inclusion, thereby improperly granting an added benefit to members of one faith and creating the impermissible inference that the District favors or prefers particular religions over others.

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a land dispute between the county and megachurch Bethel World Outreach Ministries will go to trial. The church sued the County in 2008, saying that the County was intentionally blocking the church from building a site in Gaithersburg.

"Federal law protects the right of all religious traditions, mainstream or minority, to a place where congregants can pray, worship together and teach their children," said Roman P. Storzer, the Washington, D.C., attorney retained by Al Madany, in a press statement accompanying the lawsuit. "It is up to the faith-based organization, and not the government, to decide which religious activities are uses that are to be associated with its place of worship."

Storzer, an attorney with Storzer & Greene, PLLC, has represented religious institutions nationwide in religious freedom matters. His legal victories include thwarting the Camden County Improvement Authority's (N.J.) attempt to seize Living Faith Ministries' church and allowing it to continue to exist in an area of economic redevelopment, and a decision by a federal district court supporting The Church of the Hills in a lawsuit against the Township of Bedminster, N.J., in an attempt to expand its church, according to his law firm's website.

The 3-0 decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revives Bethel World Outreach Ministries’ lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. . . . “When a religious organization buys property reasonably expecting to build a church, governmental action impeding the building of the church may impose a substantial burden,” Judge Diana G. Motz wrote Thursday for the appellate panel, which sent the case back for trial.

The church’s attorney, Roman P. Storzer, said the decision enables Bethel to press ahead with its nine-year fight to build a facility that will accommodate its growing membership. “You can’t have worship at all unless you have a place of worship,” said Storzer, of Storzer & Greene PLLC in Washington.

On December 4, the United States argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that a federal trial court applied the wrong standard in ruling against a church's claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The United States had earlier filed a brief in the appeal, Bethel World Outreach v. Montgomery County Maryland, which involves a church's efforts to construct an 800-seat church in a rural/residential section of the county, arguing that the trial court should have applied a "totality of the circumstances" test to evaluate the RLUIPA claim.

On November 27, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners of Santa Fe County voted to approve an application by O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (UDV) to build a temple on a site where it had previously worshipped for 14 years. The County's approval of UDV's application resolves the New Mexico church's claims against the County under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which were included in the lawsuit UDV filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on February 2, 2012. . . . The Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief in UDV's lawsuit on May 25, 2012, in opposition to the County's motion to dismiss UDV's complaint. The brief argued that the church had alleged sufficient facts to support a claim under RLUIPA, and that the church's RLUIPA claims should be permitted to move forward.

Although the County suggests that Bethel’s burden is not substantial because the organization already owns one facility and rents another, Bethel has presented considerable evidence that its current facilities inadequately serve its needs. Specifically, insufficient space forces Bethel to hold four services every Sunday, and to shorten services, interfering with Communion and the church’s "Altar Call" practice. Bethel’s present facilities are overcrowded, requiring ushers to turn people away from services and limiting Bethel’s ability to offer various programs. Bethel’s pastor testified that the lack of adequate facilities creates a sense of disunity because the congregation is divided into so many separate services.

If Bethel’s proffered evidence is believed, a fact finder could certainly conclude that Bethel’s current facilities do not adequately serve its religious purposes, and that the planned 800-seat church would alleviate Bethel’s burden. . . . Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Bethel, we must conclude that the district court erred in holding as a matter of law that the County did not impose a substantial burden on Bethel’s religious exercise.

According to Storzer, . . . this is an extreme case; "One that brings to mind the civil rights conflicts of the 1960s. 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. RLUIPA supersedes local zoning codes in cases such as this by allowing municipalities to consider plans for the development of religious uses that may otherwise be prohibited outright, like this Yeshiva. By denying the Rabbinical College the right to even apply for the necessary permits, while secular colleges or colleges of other religious traditions would be permitted, and even refusing to meet with Congregation representatives, the village has violated the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment and RLUIPA."

Bishop Clarence Groover Sr., pastor and founder of the Fisherman of Men Church and his jubilant congregation are still celebrating a great victory since the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board’s (HPRB) announcement of its decision to deny the request by the Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1A to grant historic status to the former York movie theater building erected in 1919 that has served this present community now as a church for the last more than 35 years.

The U.S. Department of Justice is delving into city Zoning commissioners' rejection of Al-Madany Islamic Center of Norwalk's plan to build a mosque in West Norwalk, according to city officials. . . . "Federal law protects the right of all religious traditions, mainstream or minority, to a place where congregants can pray, worship together and teach their children," said Roman P. Storzer, the attorney representing Al-Madany Islamic Center.

Roman P. Storzer, of New York-based Storzer & Greene, the attorney for Al-Madany, said Monday he cannot discuss specifics of any settlement discussions, but noted, "[T]he center was flexible in the earlier proceedings with the Zoning Commission and they still look forward to be able to achieve an amicable result with the city here. We aren't closing off any avenues of resolution."

Storzer said the complaint describes the center's need for a place of worship and the lack of an existing mosque in Norwalk. It alleges the commission's action was based on "misapplication of state and local laws," "ad hoc factors specifically and specially designed to prevent the construction of a mosque within Norwalk," and "unequal treatment as compared to similarly situated places of worship in the same area and zoning district."

Businessweek (Dec. 5, 2012)

NBC 12 (Dec. 4, 2012)

CBS 6 (Dec. 4, 2012)

After denying UDV a building permit and faced with a Federal lawsuit alleging multiple violations of congressional and constitutional mandates related to religious liberty, the Board of Commissioners of Santa Fe County, last month, agreed to provide a construction permit to the UDV to build its small church. The church had been the target of a strident campaign funded by a small group of vocal opponents from the local area, who had pressured the political bodies to deny the needed permits because of evident misunderstandings and fear of UDV’s religious practice.

As a condition of settlement, in addition to granting all needed permits for the church to begin construction, the County also agreed, at its own expense, to install public utility services not currently available in the area. The Board of County Commissioners also agreed not to dispute the UDV's prevailing party status in the federal lawsuit and UDV, as a consequence, will recover its substantial attorney's fees and legal costs as provided for under Federal law.

Such potential designation implicates two federal civil rights laws, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C §§ 2000cc et seq., and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., each of which protects the right to free exercise of religion. As discussed in further detail below, it is this Firm’s opinion that the designation of Fisherman of Men Church’s building as a historic landmark would violate the Church’s civil rights under RLUIPA and RFRA.

"Religious architecture, through its shapes, symbols, decorations, ornamentations, and monumentality, represents a strong intention to communicate a particularized message about a group's religious beliefs. 'The history of church building demonstrates that the urge to express faith through architecture is basic."

The city and Al-Madany Islamic Center of Norwalk appear headed toward resolution of the latter's lawsuit against the city. Al-Madany Islamic Center sued the city after the commission on June 6 rejected the center's plan to build a mosque/multi-purpose center at 127 Fillow St. That decision might now be reversed, or at least altered. On a 6-1 vote Thursday night, Norwalk Zoning commissioners approved the following motion: "Subject to an agreement on the terms and conditions of the final settlement agreement, we consent to a resolution to allow for zoning approval for the mosque and accessory use building."

"Federal law protects the right of all religious traditions, mainstream or minority, to a place where congregants can pray, worship together and teach their children," said Roman P. Storzer, the attorney representing Al-Madany Islamic Center, at the time the lawsuit was filed.

The complaint describes the center's need for a place of worship and the lack of an existing mosque in Norwalk, according to a statement. It alleges that the Zoning Commission's action was based on "misapplication of state and local laws," "ad hoc factors specifically and specially designed to prevent the construction of a mosque within Norwalk" and "unequal treatment as compared to similarly situated places of worship in the same area and zoning district."
The complaint states that a place of worship is an allowed use with a special permit in the residential zoning district where the property is located and alleges that the center complied with all promulgated standards for such a use.

"Federal law protects the right of all religious traditions, mainstream or minority, to a place where congregants can pray, worship together and teach their children," said Roman P. Storzer, attorney for the center, in the statement. "It is up to the faith-based organization, and not the government, to decide which religious activities are uses that are to be associated with its place of worship."

The United States' friend-of-the-court brief states that all three RLUIPA claims should be permitted to move forward. The brief first argues that UDV has alleged a substantial burden on its exercise of its religion. Surveying the case law, the brief concludes that a zoning action imposes a substantial burden if, looking at all of the surrounding circumstances, it "significantly inhibits, meaningfully curtails, or denies reasonable opportunities for activities that are important to a congregation's religion." In light of the facts regarding the lack of adequate worship space, facts supporting the importance of this particular site to the UDV congregation, and the likely difficulties they would encounter with the County with any alternative property, the United States argues that the substantial burden test has been met.

For all of these reasons, including the physical inadequacy of the current facilities, the importance of this particular location to the church, and Defendant's efforts to block Plaintiffs' locating at this property and the likelihood it would do so at any other property in Santa Fe County, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the Defendant has substantially limited, interfered with, or denied reasonable opportunities for them to engage in their religious worship.

The saga over the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, though involving a much younger building, has dragged on even longer. Members of that congregation have been trying for two decades to demolish their “Brutalist” concrete building at 16th and I streets, erected in the late 1960s, because they say it is cold, unwelcoming and nearly impossible to maintain.

But those plans got caught up in a historic landmark nomination, which blocked demolition, and then an appeal to a higher zoning official known the mayor’s agent, then a long court battle. The situation finally ended with a complicated legal settlement that will allow the church and Christian Science Monitor building on the corner site to be removed in favor of a large office building incorporating space for a glassy new Christian Science church.

Montgomery County makes it exceedingly difficult to find land to build a church, and then uses its regulations and law-making authority in arbitrary ways against disfavored categories of churches. These actions violate RLUIPA Section 2(b)(2) by discriminating on the basis of religion.

Bethel presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of whether identifying a suitable, available piece of property for purchase and obtaining the necessary permits and approval to construct a church on a new site would result in considerable “delay, uncertainty, and expense,” despite the fact that the burden might not be “insuperable.” Saints Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895, 901 (7th Cir. 2005). And Bethel certainly presented sufficient evidence to suggest that ZTA 07-07’s prohibition of PIFs on land similar to Bethel’s placed a “significantly great restriction or onus” on Bethel’s religious exercise. Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2006). Bethel presented evidence that its current facilities were insufficient for its religious needs, and that its lack of suitable facilities substantially inhibited its religious practices. For example, Bethel presented evidence that: some church members must be physically blocked from entering the church for worship services due to overcrowding; worshippers who used to be able to sit in the hallway to hear services are now precluded from doing so because of fire safety concerns; the church must hold multiple services, and therefore the entire congregation cannot meet as a single body; church members cannot receive communion during church services and instead must receive communion afterwards; the church cannot adequately engage in its “Altar Call” practice, which allows worshippers to dedicate or recommit their lives to Christ; children are turned away from the Children’s Ministry, which means that neither they, nor their parents, may attend services; there is no space for the church’s mission programs, counseling, health education, or services for single mothers and seniors; and the church has lost members because of the issues with its facilities.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on April 12, the Civil Rights Division argued that a church in Montgomery County, Maryland, that had been prevented by the county from building an 800-seat church on a 119-acre site, had set forth facts that could show that the county imposed a "substantial burden" on the church's religious exercise in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The brief in the case, Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery County, was filed with the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and contends that a federal trial court in Maryland erred in granting summary judgment to the county.

Bethel World Outreach Ministries currently serves a congregation of 2,000 by holding multiple services at two locations in Montgomery County. In 2004, the church purchased a 119-acre parcel of land in the county in a zone that at the time permitted churches. The church began the process of planning construction of a large church. Subsequent zoning changes had the effect of blocking the development. . . .

The United States' brief observes that Bethel Outreach Ministries presented numerous facts to show that its religious exercise was substantially inhibited and limited. For example, it presented facts that its current services were so over-capacity that ushers had to physically bar congregants from entering, that religious elements of services including alter calls and communion had to be limited, that children were turned away from Sunday school, that various charitable programs of the church had to be eliminated because of inadequate space, and that the church would face considerable "delay, uncertainty, and expense" in seeking alternative properties. In light of these and other similar factors, the United States' brief argues, the church presented sufficient evidence of a substantial burden on it religious exercise to allow the case to go trial.

RESOLUTION NO. 2012-IHPC-001 (For Public Hearing) Amends the Comprehensive Plan of Marion County, Indiana, by rescinding the adoption of St. John United Church of Christ Historic Area Preservation Plan 38 (SJC) – St. John United Church of Christ Historic Area, and by removing the St. John United Church of Christ Historic Area Preservation Plan as a segment of the Comprehensive Plan

A provisional settlement in a federal lawsuit filed last September against the city by St. John United Church of Christ gives parties in the case six months to find a buyer for the nearly 100-year-old church at the northeast corner of Washington Street and German Church Road. . . . The church planned to use the proceeds of the sale to build a $3 million church at Prospect Street and Carroll Road that would have the amenities necessary to boost membership and lift the church out of financial distress. The shrinking congregation said it lacked the means to pay for $1.3 million in utility bills, maintenance and capital projects needed at the old church.

“There is a presumptive settlement under which the church could sell its property and build elsewhere and the preservationists could save the building,” said Roman P. Storzer, an attorney with Storzer & Greene, a Washington, D.C.-based firm that represents the church. The firm specializes in religious land-use cases. “The church is working in good faith to find a solution that works for everybody.” Storzer said either party could revive the case, filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, within a year if the dispute isn’t resolved. . . .

The clock started ticking on the settlement in April. If after six months there is no resolution, the city agreed in the settlement to begin the process of lifting the historic designation.

Robert A.M. Stern Architects of New York has been named by developers ICG Properties and the JBG Cos. to design a 160,000-square-foot office building and a new place of worship for the Third Church of Christ, Scientist to replace the current building, an example of the Brutalist architecture movement of the 1960s. . . . With such a high-profile choice, the developers are hoping to move the conversation away from what might be lost when the existing church is torn down and toward what might be gained when the building is replaced.

The case was heard by a 10-person jury from Nov. through Nov. 18, 2010. The parties agreed to settle the case on Nov. 18 for $3,250,000. Defendants admitted to substantially burdening the plaintiffs’ religious exercise through the particular application of its laws and policies to plaintiff without a compelling governmental interest and without using the least restrictive means of furthering any such interest, and to unconstitutionally targeting the church by passing legislation aimed only at the church. As part of the settlement, defendants also agreed to allow the church to build a school twice the size of the one originally requested on the property.

A federal judge has rejected the town of Woodboro's motion to dismiss a lawsuit involving Oneida County, the town of Woodboro and three brothers who want to build a Bible Camp on Squash Lake. In a 20-page decision filed March 24, U.S. District Judge William Conley ruled the case will go forward in federal court. Last April, the town filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds the appropriate venue for the lawsuit is the circuit court, the judicial body that ordinarily reviews decisions of county boards of adjustment, not the federal court. Conley soundly rejected the argument.

A federal judge in a March 24, 2011 ruling has denied 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. and long-time county residents and property owners – 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.

Many municipalities “clearly do not understand what is protected under RLUIPA,” said Roman P. Storzer, a leading RLUIPA attorney in Washington, D.C. “It's up to the church to decide how to exercise their religion. It's not up to the city or county.”

"The federal courts have unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the RLUIPA law," said Roman Storzer, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who has represented dozens of religious groups on land-use disputes similar to the Chabad case. "The defendants' argument [made by the Borough of Litchfield] sounds like a desperate ploy to avoid the applicability of the law. This kind of argument has never been successful.”

On November 18, 2010, Anne Arundel County agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by Storzer & Greene client Riverdale Baptist Church in federal court. The County agreed to pay the Church $3.25 million and permit it to build a 400+ student school on its 57-acre property. The settlement was reached on the 12th day of an extended jury trial in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Maryland.

County Attorney] Hodgson Thursday admitted in court that the county - specifically the administration of then-County Executive Janet S. Owens - targeted the church with restrictive legislation and therefore violated a federal law that prevents local municipalities from blocking specific congregations from building houses of worship. He said the admission was necessary in light of "damaging testimony" from people involved in the Owens administration - perhaps most notably a former aide to Owens, Carl O. Snowden.

“The effect of the landmarking is to seriously damage the congregation and also virtually ensure the building will become a ruin. There is simply no way to preserve it, given the financial resources of the congregation,” said Robert L. Greene, an attorney representing the church with Washington, D.C.-based Storzer & Greene. The firm specializes in trying religious land-use cases nationwide.

Religious liberty is being pitted against historic preservation in a federal lawsuit filed this month against the city of Indianapolis. . . . Robert L. Greene contends that Indianapolis officials have violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, passed in 2000 as a means of affirming special protection for churches, synagogues, mosques and other facilities with religious uses. "The effect of the present designation is that they can't really function as they should as a church," Greene said.

“This action effectively requires the Church to maintain an ineffective and inefficient structure—one that it can no longer afford—in perpetuity,” stated Church attorney Roman P. Storzer. “This, the Constitution and federal law do not allow.”

The Court of Appeals will consider an Appellate Division ruling in May that Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov remains tax exempt for its camp amid 130 acres off Routes 203 and 306. The Appellate Division panel overruled a state Supreme Court justice who sided with Ramapo's decision to tax the congregation.

In applying takings principles to the particular facts here, the Mayor’s Agent properly took into account that failure to grant historic-preservation clearance would interfere with Third Church’s reasonable expectations concerning its utilization of the building to enable it to continue its mission as a downtown congregation, which was vital to its existence. Moreover, putting aside the particular situation of Third Church, there is substantial evidence that the building cannot feasibly be maintained or repaired and that there are no reasonable alternative economic uses for the building.

Bikur Cholim v. Village of Suffern,
Civ. No. 05-10759.

United States v. Village of Suffern,
Civ. No. 06-7713.

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.

Contrary to the County’s claims, the district court plainly weighed the County’s zoning interests: the court did not agree that RMCC’s special use application violated the County Land Use Code, and found that RMCC’s statutory right to free exercise of religion outweighed the negative impacts of expansion on the community.

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.

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.

“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 government’s job to tell believers how and where they may worship.”

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, . . .

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."

“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.

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.

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."

“Nobody should be subject to official disadvantage based on their spiritual beliefs,” said King’s 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.

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 jury’s findings below further support the legitimacy of that concern.

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.

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 Village’s 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 group’s mission.” Thus, the court held, Bikur Cholim’s facilitation of Sabbath observance for Jews visiting the hospital or being discharged from the hospital constitutes religious exercise under the statute.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

United Sikhs and law firm Storzer & Greene secured a settlement including $20,000 in compensation for Pyara Singh’s 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, it’s important to know that the First Amendment doesn’t get lost in the process.”

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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 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.

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 . . .”

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.”

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."

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.

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 Amendment’s guarantees for freedom of worship.

“In the hierarchy of values that should be protected, freedom of religion has to come before architecture,” Storzer said.

"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.

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."

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.

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.

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 church’s attorney.

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.

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 what’s really going on in Rockland, and why RLUIPA is so necessary.

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."

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.

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?"

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, it’s 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. “That’s indicative of the fact that there truly is discrimination going on.”
.

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 Lawrence—after months of analysis, deliberation, and consultation on the matter—consented 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.

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.

"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.

The denial of the parking variance, or the limitation of the parking variance only to Sabbath services and Holy Day observance, would violate the Congregation’s 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 York’s 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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Moxley’s 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 town’s 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.

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.

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.

"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.

“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.”

Speaking more broadly, the judge upheld the constitutional principle that believers, not bureaucrats, get to decide what their church is supposed to look like.

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.

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.

• 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)

• Wayne sued by Muslim group, The West Milford Messenger (July 27, 2006)

• Muslim Group Fights for Mosque, The Record (July 19, 2006):

• 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)