 |
|
Albanian
Associated Fund v. Township of Wayne, N.J.:
Preventing the Township from seizing a Mosque’s property
four years into its development process.
|
| |
• 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)
|
Back to Top
|
Bikur
Cholim v. Village of Suffern, N.Y.:
Defending the right of Orthodox Jews to be near their
loved ones in times of medical emergency
|
| |
• "US:
Don't close Shabbat House!" Ynetnews (July 11, 2006).
• Brief
Amicus Curiae
filed in support of Bikur Cholim by 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
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. |
• Suffern
Seeks To Close Bikur Cholim Shabbos House, The Jewish Press (February 2, 2006):
| |
"I
think they just don't want the Jews here,"
said Rabbi Lauber, who described his shock at reading
in a newspaper that before the town hearing, which
he attended, the town's code enforcer prepped villagers
to avoid talking about religion.
The tension in the room was so fierce, Rabbi Lauber recalled,
that the police chief sat in the row in front of
him and his fellow Bikur Cholim representatives,
ostensibly to prevent an attack of sorts.
"At no point during the proceedings were we
given a chance to explain ourselves," said
Goldstein. "As soon as our attorney started
reading a letter of support from Good Samaritan Hospital, 250 people in the courtroom began
booing. It was something you would see on a TV show. I couldn't believe
what I was seeing. It didn't feel like America.
It just didn't." |
A motion to enjoin Suffern from shutting down the Shabbos
House is pending in federal district court.
• No
welcome for Jews staying near hospital, Times Herald-Record (January 24, 2006)
• Jewish
Group files federal suit against Suffern, The Journal News (Jan. 4, 2006)
• Federal
lawsuit filed against Village of Suffern for violating
First Amendment, Press Release (January 3, 2006):
| |
Bikur
Cholim (literally, “to visit the sick”) has operated
in Suffern for 17 years, most recently within the
Hospital itself. While Good Samaritan is fully supportive
of Bikur Cholim’s mission, because of its own need
for space for its medical treatment facilities,
it was no longer able to house Rabbi Lauber’s activity.
Bikur Cholim then purchase a residential house at
5 Hillcrest Road in Suffern to continue to serve
the Jewish population housing up to fourteen people
during the Sabbath and approximately 11 holy days.
After numerous citations from the Village for operating
what it deemed an “illegal” use—the Village defined
its use as a “transient motel” even though it charges
nothing for stays—Bikur Cholim applied for a variance,
which was unanimously denied. Without recourse to
the federal courts, Bikur Cholim would be forced
to close its doors. |
|
Back to Top
|
Hindu
Temple Society of America:
Protecting the largest Hindu organization in the nation
from an attack by dissident members.
|
| |
• Resounding
Victory for Hindu Temple Society,
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
(March 10, 2006):
| |
Robert Greene,
Of Counsel to The Becket Fund, said "We are
very happy that the devotees have resoundingly demonstrated
their commitment to the First Amendment and freedom
of religion. We will continue to fight to have the
New York State Courts recognize the Temple's right
to organize and manage itself without state interference." |
• Spitzer
reverses decision on Hindu Temple Society, Times
Ledger (July 28, 2005): Describes the NY Attorney
General's brief filed in the case involving an attempted
hostile takeover of a religious institution.
| |
"The
attorney general argues that the prior mistaken
decision of the New York Appellate Court can be
reversed," said Becket Fund counsel Roman Storzer.
"And it certainly should, to avoid becoming
the first constitutional decision in this nation's
history permitting the government to decide how
religious institutions will be run." |
•• Attorney
General Sides With Flushing Temple's Board, Queens Chronicle (July 14, 2005):
| |
"This
is a very favorable development," said Roman
Storzer, a lawyer for the Becket Fund. "We're
happy that these important constitutional issues
are finally being recognized and hope that the position
of his office will persuade the court to reconsider
these First Amendment rights." |
• New
York AG Spitzer Files Brief Supporting Hindu Temple Society, Press Release, The Becket Fund (July 11, 2005):
| |
"The
Attorney General argues that the prior mistaken
decision of the New York appellate court can be
reversed," stated Becket Fund Of Counsel Roman
P. Storzer, "and it certainly should to avoid
becoming the first constitutional decision in this
Nation's history permitting the government to decide
how religious institutions will be run." |
• •
The
Hindu America Foundation's Press
Release on its letter amicus curiae submitted
in federal court. |
Back to Top
|
Living
Faith Ministries v. Camden County Improvement Authority,
N.J.:
Successfully prevented the County from seizing Living
Faith’s land for “redevelopment.”
|
| |
• Church
Property Protected from Eminent Domain Seizure,
Press Release, (May 5, 2005): "Settlement Reached
Between Living Faith Ministries and Camden County Improvement
Authority. The Camden County Improvement Authority has
officially agreed not to use its eminent domain power
to seize the property of Living Faith Ministries":
| |
"We applaud
county officials for their willingness to take a
seat at the bargaining table and recognize that
the Church's ministry to the community is not inconsistent
with their plans for revitalizing Camden County,"
said Of Counsel Roman P. Storzer. |
|
Back to Top
|
Church
of the Hills v. Township of Bedminster, N.J.:
Representing a church unable to grow because of restrictive
zoning conditions.
|
| |
• Settlement
still possibility in Church of the Hills suit, Bernardsville
News (June 13, 2006)
• Court
rules in favor of church,
The Reporter (March 2, 2006):
| |
"This
decision confirms that cities and towns can't simply
deny permits to churches in a way that substantially
burdens their religion because of political pressure,"
said Storzer. "They'll be required to justify
these decisions and demonstrate that they had no
other means of achieving their goals.” |
• Federal
judge won’t dismiss Church of the Hills Lawsuit, Recorder Newspapers (March 2, 2006).
• Major
Victory for The Church of the Hills in Civil Rights
Case, Press Release (February 24, 2006):
| |
The federal
district court hearing the lawsuit between The Church
of the Hills and Bedminster Township, which charges
that the Township violated the First Amendment and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), denied the Township’s
motion to dismiss the lawsuit late Friday. The United
States Department of Justice had previously filed
a brief in support of the Church’s arguments, saying
that the Township’s arguments were "without
merit" and represented "a fundamental
misunderstanding" of the applicable law.
The court rejected every single
argument by the Township that RLUIPA was unconstitutional,
holding that "[a]pplying the heightened level
of scrutiny imposed by the RLUIPA’s general rule
. . . to these types of individualized assessments
merely codifies the jurisprudence in Free Exercise
cases . . . ." The court rejected the Township’s
additional arguments that RLUIPA violated the Commerce
Clause, the Tenth Amendment, the Establishment Clause,
or "separation of powers." |
Mr. Storzer represents the Church along
with the New Jersey firm of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer
P.A. Read the court's opinion here.
• Church
of the Hills' only option,
Letter to the Editor, Courier-News:
| |
The lawsuit
filed by the church is brought under a federal law,
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act, which levels the playing field and requires
towns and churches to reach a compromise. When Bedminster
failed in its obligations under state and federal
law to take into account the importance of religious
institutions in our society, the church was left
with no other option but to protect its rights. |
• 'Mega-churches'
evoking hostility,
Courier News at A1 (July 24, 2005):
| |
Storzer said
conflicts between religious institutions and land-use
authorities are particularly common in New Jersey
for three reasons:
Density. In the nation's most densely populated
state, churches don't have the option of building
new facilities on the outer fringes of suburbia,
as they do, say, in Atlanta or Dallas. Because they
are closer to their neighbors, they are more likely
to run into local opposition.
Diversity. The state's pluralistic culture means
that more non-mainline religions and/or denominations
are seeking to build or expand religious facilities,
thus setting the stage for discrimination. The Hindu
Temple and Cultural Society, for instance, has more
than 31 temples in New Jersey.
Abundant land-use laws. In many areas of the country,
the zoning regulations are loose, making it easier
for churches to expand or build. But because it
is more established, New Jersey has a host of laws
that local officials can use as justification for
turning down churches' applications.
"There are more land-use regulations in New
Jersey than, say, in Montana," he said. And
the conflicts are bound to increase. |
• Federal
lawsuit filed against Bedminster Township for violating
Religious Land Use Act; Township prevents church growth
even after numerous concessions made, Press Release (July 8, 2005)
• Church
files suit over vote,
Somerset Reporter (July 14, 2005):
| |
"The denial
was based on NIMBY concerns," said Roman Storzer,
who has been retained by Church of the Hills. Storzer,
who gained experience on religious land use cases
through his work with the Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty, said that the denial came even though the
church was willing to negotiate and compromise." |
• Church
says Bedminster denying right to worship, Courier
News, (July 12, 2005).
• Church
sues for the right to expand in Bedminster, The Star-Ledger, (July
7, 2005). |
Back to Top
|
Faith
Temple Church v. Town of Brighton, N.Y.:
Preventing a Town from seizing a church’s property to
expand a park.
|
| |
·
Amicus curiae
briefs filed in support of Storzer & Greene’s clients
by:
|
Back to Top
|
First
Pentecostal United Holy Church v. City of Chesapeake, Virginia: Settled lawsuit against City for denial of church’s zoning
permit for $1.1 million.
|
| |
• Chesapeake
settles property dispute with church for $1.1 million, Virginian-Pilot (October 28, 2005):
| |
"Our clients are
very pleased," said Roman Paul Storzer, a Washington,
D.C., attorney and co-counsel for the church. "This
gives them the opportunity to keep doing the good
work they're doing in the community for some time
to come."
Storzer said First Pentecostal had a strong case
if the dispute had gone to trial.
"The importance of this settlement is clear,"
he said. "Cities must consider the religious
rights of churches when planning their economic
agendas." |
• Federal
lawsuit against City of Chesapeake Settled; City Offers
First Pentecostal United Holy Church $1.1 Million for
Property, Press Release: (Oct. 27, 2005):
| |
"The importance of
this settlement is clear," stated Roman P.
Storzer, co-counsel for the Church and church-zoning
expert, "cities must consider the religious
rights of churches when planning their economic
agendas." When the property, which had formerly
housed a supermarket, was put on the market several
years ago, the Church was the only interested buyer.
"With the settlement, the City of Chesapeake
is choosing to invest in its revitalization plan
through the purchase of the property, rather than
denying construction permits to those who saw a
different vision for the community in which they
live." |
• Court
is best arbiter in church-city dispute, The Virginian-Pilot
(Jan. 23, 2005). |
Back to Top
|
Parameswaran
v. Mysorekar:
Successfully represented Temple against overtime lawsuit
brought by religious employee.
|
| |
• Religion
and America,
Letter to the Editor, The Indian Express (Aug.
5, 2005): Mr. Storzer explains how labor laws cannot intrude
upon the First Amendment:
| |
As the lawsuit
itself describes, the religious cooks prepare naivedyam
(cooked offerings) for daily rituals as well as
special prasadams for Hindu festivals. These are
all part of non-profit religious activity that has
a much different character than frying up burgers
at McDonalds.
The Temple will defend itself in this matter. These
protections are especially important where minority
religions, such as Hinduism in the United States,
are concerned. We cannot always count on government
bureaucrats making the right decisions for activities
that they may not well understand |
• New
Lawsuit Alleges Temple Mistreated Cooks and Priests, Queens Chronicle (July 28, 2005).
| |
"We believe
that it's going to be thrown out very quickly,"
said Roman Storzer, a lawyer that is representing
the temple. Storzer added that the labor laws cited
in the lawsuit cover commercial, not religious workers.
"It's not a restaurant. Nobody comes in off
the street who's not worshipping there," Storzer
said. |
|
Back to Top
|
St.
John’s United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago:
Defending two religious cemeteries from desecration
by Chicago’s airport plans.
|
| |
• Court Halts
$15B O'Hare Expansion Plan, ABC News (September 30,
2005):
| |
The city was
expecting final approval and started to break ground
on the airport's first runway since 1971 after Mayor
Richard M. Daley said "Let's go" into
a walkie talkie at a celebratory news conference.
But hours later, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington
granted a stay of the project while it considers
an emergency request filed by opponents, who argued
it should be stopped because it would desecrate
a cemetery with 1,300 tombs dating back to the 1800s. |
• Hours
after FAA's approval, court halts $15B O'Hare plan, USA Today (September 30, 2005).
• FAA
backs Daley's O'Hare Plan,
Chicago Tribune (July 28, 2005):
| |
The city had planned
to destroy both Rest Haven and St. Johannes to make
room for Runway 10 Center, which the city expects
to open in 2009. . . . But the FAA said Rest Haven
could remain undisturbed if Chicago modified plans
to build new airport cargo facilities.
|
Read the FAA's press release here. |
Back to Top
|
Vietnamese
Buddhist Meditation Congregation v. County of San Diego,
California: Successfully
prevented San Diego County from shutting down the Congregation’s
meditation exercises.
|
| |
• Order
on Settlement, maintaining jurisdiction to ensure
that the terms of the agreement, which permit the Plaintiff
monks and laypeople to continue their meditation activity,
are enforced.
• Law
Briefs, The Daily Record (August 2, 2005).
• Buddhists
Reach Accord With County, Can Resume Worship, L.A.
Daily Journal (August 3, 2005):
| |
SAN DIEGO - Vietnamese
Buddhist monks who claimed that their neighbors'
religious hostility led to the shutdown of their
services have won a settlement that allows worship
to resume.
The accord lifts a cease-and-desist order that
had halted meditation and other activities on the
site, located near Bonsall in northern San Diego
County.
"This is exactly the type of protection
Congress meant to extend when it passed [RLUIPA],"
Storzer said.
|
• Federal
lawsuit against County of San Diego settled; County
will permit religious use to continue in Bonsall,
Press Release (August 1, 2005):
| |
"This
is a great victory for these monks and those who
meditate with them," said Roman P. Storzer,
attorney for the Congregation. "We applaud
the County for agreeing to allow the use to continue."
This is the latest case to be resolved under RLUIPA,
which prevents local governments from 'substantially
burdening' religious exercise unless they have compelling
reasons for doing so. "A small, minority religion
without great political power in the County will
now be able to continue engaging in the same religious
activity they have enjoyed for several years." |
• Monks,
county reach agreement in civil suit, North County Times (July 28, 2005).
• Meeting
about Buddhist temple expected to draw a crowd, San Diego Union-Tribune (July 30, 2005).
• Buddhist
group sues county over cease-and-desist order, North County Times (June 9, 2005).
• Buddhists
have a right to meditate,
Letter to the Editor (June 24, 2005).
|
Back to Top
|
Other
Issues:
|
| |
• Growing
churches spreading their wings, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (March 26, 2006):
| |
The
biggest reason churches run into problems is the
NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) factor, said Roman P.
Storzer, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., who specializes
in the First Amendment. Sometimes places of worship
will be discouraged from moving or expanding in
downtown areas because they don't pull in enough
traffic. Those same churches might be discouraged
from moving to the suburbs because they bring in
too much traffic. |
• Effect of O Centro
Supreme Court Decision on RLUIPA Cases, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Mar. 6, 2006):
| |
On February 21, 2006,
the United States Supreme Court issued a watershed
decision in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente
Uniao Do Vegetal, No. 04-1084, 546 U.S. __ (2006),
applying the federal Religious Freedom Restoration
Act (the predecessor to the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act) against the federal
government. While the decision is nominally about
a separate statute protecting religious exercise
and about drug use, its implications for church
zoning issues are significant. |
The Becket Fund's RLUIPA
project was spearheaded by Mr. Storzer during his
tenure as its Director of Litigation and remains a valuable
resource to religious institutions affected by burdensome
and discriminatory land use regulation.
• Catholic
Utopia?, AFF Brainwash (March 5, 2006): Mr.
Storzer's column on the legal and other issues surrounding
Domino Pizza founder Thomas Monaghan's plans to build
the Town of Ave Maria in southwestern Florida:
| |
The initial concept of
Ave Maria, if implemented, would scale back on what
the modern American understands to be the personal
freedoms he is entitled to: privacy rights, free
speech, free press, no establishment of religion.
And perhaps few of us would hope that the nation
itself would be run this way. But where nobody will
step within the borders of Ave Maria other than
by his own free choice--and where objectors are
free to avoid participating simply by hopping on
a bus--won't it be regrettable if there isn't room
in America, even in some remote tomato field, for
this experiment? |
• Bush
nominates Alito to Supreme Court, CNN.com (October
31, 2005). President Bush’s nomination will help to
ensure strong application of the Free Exercise Clause's
protection of religious liberty. At the Third Circuit,
Judge Alito wrote opinions both protecting the rights
of those practicing minority faiths and well as rejecting
a doctrine of separationist hostility to religion (during
his years at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty,
Roman Storzer had the opportunity to represent several
clients in religious liberty cases before Judge Alito):
| |
Fraternal Order
of Police, Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark,
170 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 1999): In a case where Mr.
Storzer represented the plaintiffs, Judge Alito
protected the rights of Muslim police officers to
wear beards for religious reasons, where exceptions
to a no-beard policy were made for other reasons.
Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania,
381 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2004): Held that Pennsylvania
did not have a sufficiently compelling reason to
prevent a Native American from practicing
his faith.
ACLU-NJ v. Township
of Wall, 246 F.3d
258 (3d Cir. 2001): Rejected a challenge by the
ACLU-NJ to a town's Christmas display. Mr.
Storzer, representing the Township, successfully
argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring
this challenge.
Child Evangelism Fellowship
of New Jersey v. Stafford Township School District,
386 F.3d 514 (3d Cir. 2004): Ordered that
a school district could not discriminate against
a religious group in its policy regarding flyer
distribution.
ACLU-NJ v. Schundler,
168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 2001): Rejected another challenge
by the ACLU-NJ to a holiday display. Judge Alito
upheld a display by Jersey City (represented by
Roman Storzer) that included a menorah and creche
as an element of the city's cultural and ethnic
diversity. |
• Letter
to the Editor: "Religion,
Land Zoning." (Oct. 23, 2005). In responding
to Paula Saha's "Feds
Probe Zoning Case," The Ledger (Oct.
15, 2005), Mr. Storzer writes
| |
The conflict between
religious institutions -- churches, synagogues and
mosques, and local zoning authorities -has existed
for decades, with legitimate concerns being raised
by both sides. It has resulted in Congress and many
states passing legislation protecting important
First Amendment freedoms, many towns and counties
reconsidering land-use laws, and churches becoming
newly aware of potential impacts they may have on
communities.
However, reporter Paula Saha [of the Religion News
Service] reduces this debate simply to being about
"a church's freedom to build where it pleases."
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which
gives the federal Department of Justice the authority
to investigate illegal zoning practices, provides
churches with relief only in very specific instances:
where it is being discriminated against or where
its religious exercise is being "substantially
burdened" without an important reason by the
government. |
·
San
Francisco, CA: Hastings
Weekly (October 3, 2005): "Professor Marci
Hamilton -- author of God & the Gavel: Religion and
the Rule of Law and leading RLUIPA advocate -- and Roman
Storzer -- formerly with the Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty and counsel for religious organizations in many
of the leading RLUIPA cases -- will square off on RLUIPA,
religious displays, prayer, and the role of religion in
public life."
• 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-written by Roman
Storzer and Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., President and General
Counsel of The Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty.
| |
While churches are
being eliminated from downtown and commercial areas
because municipalities believe that such uses do
not attract enough traffic to generate retail and
tax revenues for surrounding areas, they
are simultaneously being eradicated from residential
districts for creating too much traffic and noise.
Regardless of which of these perceptions, if any,
is true, this country has a long tradition of churches
serving the community by ministering to its population.
Their missions may include serving the homeless
from a downtown site, reaching out to the community
from a strip mall, or engaging in quiet reflection
in a tranquil residential location. The freedom
to choose how best to fulfill their faith requirements
is routinely burdened by overzealous, religiously
insensitive, or actively hostile zoning and landmarking
authorities… |
• No Muzzles
On the Pulpit,
National Law Journal (Oct. 18, 2004):
| |
Ministers across the country
are censoring themselves for fear of jeopardizing
their churches’ tax-exempt status. These leaders
provide guidance to millions of Americans on the
most fundamental moral issues of the day. The IRS
should stop censoring them. |
• Struggling
As Churches With Neighbors,
originally published by The
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty: A response to Findlaw
columnist and notorious church opponent Marci Hamilton,
describing five mischaracterizations of the law and the
difficulties endured by churches faced with having their
ministries defined not by faith, but by local zoning regulation.
• "The
Souter Dissent: A Failed Argument," in Church-State
Relations In Crisis; Debating Neutrality (S. Monsma,
ed., 2002), co-written by Roman Storzer and Kevin J. Hasson,
discussing Justice Souter's dissenting opinion in Mitchell
v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000).
| |
"An important,
substantial, and accessible book. I hope very much.
. . that it will be widely read, in this present
time of crisis and change, by students (including
some undergraduates) as well as by the full range
of Court observers and others deeply concerned about
the future of the church-state relationship in the
United States." Law & Politics Book Review
|
• When
Land Use Issues Are Also Religious Freedom Issues: The
Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act Of
2000 And The Four Constitutional Commandments Of Zoning
Practices, FindLaw Legal Commentary (2002), co-written
by Roman Storzer and Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.
| |
RLUIPA
reflects little that is new in the law protecting
religious land uses from unconstitutional government
action. It is important as a restatement and reminder
that the Constitution governs all government action,
including the action of zoning authorities. The
Free Exercise Clause is no less alive in a land-use
dispute than in, for example, a dispute over whether
a Muslim government employee may be fired for wearing
a hijab. |
|
Back to Top
|
|
|
