A federal district court in Illinois recently denied a church’s preliminary injunction motion and dismissed its suit alleging that a zoning ordinance violates RLUIPA and the Equal Protection Clause. In all of its zoning districts, the Village of Homewood allows places of worship only as special uses. Because non-religious assembly uses are permitted by right in some districts, the Word Seed Church claimed that the ordinance substantially restricts its ability to obtain property in Homewood. Although the Church never sought the required special use permit, it filed suit alleging that the ordinance violates the equal terms, unreasonable limitations, and substantial burden provisions of RLUIPA and the Equal Protection Clause. The Church also moved for a preliminary injunction against enforcement.
Continue Reading Court Dismisses RLUIPA and Equal Protection Clause Case for Lack of Standing
Eleventh Circuit Upholds Denial of Street Preacher’s Preliminary Injunction Motion
Earlier this year, the federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction requested by a street preacher who alleged that a county government had infringed upon his First Amendment rights.
Adam LaCroix is a street preacher who discusses “Biblical principles of sexual morality” outside public venues
Texas City’s Banner Sign Limitation Found Content Based, But Survives First Amendment Challenge
It is a rare free speech case where a court finds a regulation content based, but still upholds the regulation. That very scenario played out in a federal district court in Texas, when it upheld the City of Shavano Park’s sign regulation prohibiting certain banner signs.
Shavano Park, a suburb of San Antonio, has a sign code that controls the placement of signs on private property. The code allows one temporary sign per residential lot, with some additional allowances when properties are for sale or during election seasons. The code also allows the placement of banner signs in residential zoning districts, with some limitations. These limitations include that such signs may be erected by a homeowners’ association, they may be placed at entrances to residential neighborhoods, no more than one banner sign is allowed per owner, and banner signs are only permitted in the week before the first Tuesday in October, which coincides with National Night Out. The sign code’s stated rationale for its restrictions focuses largely on aesthetics.
Continue Reading Texas City’s Banner Sign Limitation Found Content Based, But Survives First Amendment Challenge
Billboard Company Loses Suit Against Illinois Village
This past summer, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a billboard company’s challenge to a billboard restriction in Bellwood, Illinois was mooted by the fact that the company lost its lease on the property that it intended to construct a billboard. The court affirmed dismissal of the company’s First Amendment, equal protection, and antitrust claims.
In 2005, Paramount Media obtained leasehold rights to a property in the village abutting I-290, a high-traffic interstate corridor outside of Chicago. Although it sought the necessary state permits for a billboard, it failed to seek permits from the village. In 2009, the village amended its sign code to prohibit new billboards. The village later amended the code again to allow billboards on village-owned property. Paramount then sought to lease village-owned property along the interstate, but was rebuked, as the village had leased its property to another billboard company.
Continue Reading Billboard Company Loses Suit Against Illinois Village
Supreme Court Rules That Cross Monument Can Remain, Despite Religious Meaning
In a widely-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled late last month that a large concrete cross located on public property at a major intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland, could remain in place. The nearly 90-year-old cross, which was placed to honor victims of World War I, had been challenged by an atheist organization as a violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on establishment of religion.
In a fractured decision, seven of the Justices agreed that the cross could stay. Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice Alito argued that, although the Latin cross has a religious meaning, its longtime placement at a major intersection as a war memorial meant that it had taken on a secular meaning as well. In light of this longstanding history, he concluded that the cross was not a violation of religious liberty. In rendering his opinion, Justice Alito eschewed use of the widely-criticized Lemon test, developed by the Supreme Court in 1971, which looks at the government’s purpose and the effect of a regulation to determine whether an unconstitutional establishment of religion is created. Justices Breyer and Kagan concurred in the opinion, noting that each Establishment Clause case must be reviewed individually and observing that no particular judicial test works in every situation.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules That Cross Monument Can Remain, Despite Religious Meaning
Pro Se Plaintiff Claims Victory Against Kansas Community In Sign Code Dispute
Earlier this month, a federal district court in Kansas awarded summary judgment to a plaintiff who claimed that the City of Williamsburg’s sign code violated the First Amendment.
The plaintiff, Eric Clark, placed several signs and other objects in a city right-of-way easement. The city issued a notice of violation, which set off a series of interactions between the city’s code enforcement officer and Clark, and Clark issued several letters to the city claiming various violations of his civil rights. Although the city desisted from further enforcement action, Clark, representing himself, filed a lawsuit against the city.
Continue Reading Pro Se Plaintiff Claims Victory Against Kansas Community In Sign Code Dispute
Appeals Court Finds That Dallas Adult Convention Case Can Proceed
In October of this year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an operator of an adult entertainment convention called “Exxxotica” had standing to challenge the City of Dallas, Texas’s 2016 decision not to enter into a contract allowing the event. The appeals court’s decision reversed a prior ruling by the federal district court dismissing the case.
In 2015, Three Expo Events, L.L.C., held the Exxxotica event at the Dallas Convention Center. The event, which featured near-nudity and a variety of suggestive activities, caught the attention of community members who believed that the event was immoral. These protesters then asked Dallas’s mayor to prohibit a second annual convention, and the mayor obliged. In 2016, the city refused to renew the event’s contract, and the city council approved a resolution prohibiting the same. Three Expo Events then filed suit, alleging First Amendment violations.
Because the city council’s resolution only prohibited Three Expo Events, and not its subsidiary—which would have been the party to the convention center contract—the district court found that Three Expo Events lacked standing to challenge the city’s decision.
Continue Reading Appeals Court Finds That Dallas Adult Convention Case Can Proceed
Ninth Circuit Rules Against Ventura County Conditional Use Permitting Scheme
Michael Fowler, a resident of Ventura County, California, cultivated a garden on a portion of his agriculturally-zoned 40 acre property and began renting it out for wedding ceremonies and similar events with much success. However, due to changes to the County’s permit requirements, Mr. Fowler is now required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) before hosting any additional weddings on his estate. With reservations already on his books, Mr. Fowler submitted the required application. Officials tasked with reviewing his application found that the use would cause no adverse impacts and recommended granting the permit; however, after receiving complaints from neighbors, these same officials denied his application. The Board of Supervisors upheld the denial on appeal. This seemingly capricious denial forced Mr. Fowler to chose between breaking the law and dashing the dreams of couples who had already booked his venue by essentially cancelling their weddings. Sensibly, he chose the latter “option,” resulting in at least one scathing review of his business and untold reputational harm.
Thwarted but not defeated,
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules Against Ventura County Conditional Use Permitting Scheme
Court Allows First Amendment Claims to Move Forward in Reno Sign Code Case
Last week, a federal district court in Nevada ruled on the City of Reno’s motion to dismiss several claims brought against it by a billboard company and landowner relating to the placement of off-premises billboards in the city.
The plaintiffs in the case are a billboard company called Strict Scrutiny Media (which perhaps implies the type of judicial review that the company wanted, but did not get, in this case) and the Independent Order of Odd Fellows Reno Lodge #14. SSM obtained billboard leases at three sites owned by the Oddfellows, constructed signs on all three locations, and obtained permits for the construction of one of the signs. In late 2016, the city informed SSM and Oddfellows that the permitted sign’s permit was invalid due to the fact that it was issued to a different sign operator, and also informed Oddfellows that two other signs that had been installed by SSM and Oddfellows were constructed without a permit in violation of the city’s code. Oddfellows and SSM then challenged the city’s action, and also challenged the city’s ban on the erection of new, permanent off-premises signs and the city’s exemptions to permit requirements for certain temporary or permanent on-premises signs.
Continue Reading Court Allows First Amendment Claims to Move Forward in Reno Sign Code Case
Second Circuit Affirms District Court Injunction Against Oyster Bay Solicitation Ordinance
On Tuesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Town of Oyster Bay, New York’s prohibition on motor vehicle solicitation of employment violated the First Amendment. The appellate court’s ruling affirms an earlier district court ruling that found similarly. The plaintiffs in the case were two groups that advocate for the interests of day laborers.
Oyster Bay enacted an ordinance in 2009 that read, in relevant part, “It shall be unlawful for any person standing within or adjacent to any public right-of-way within the Town of Oyster Bay to stop or attempt to stop any motor vehicle utilizing said public right-of-way for the purpose of soliciting employment of any kind from the occupants of said motor vehicle.” Oyster Bay’s ordinance was ostensibly an effort to curb day laborer solicitation.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms District Court Injunction Against Oyster Bay Solicitation Ordinance