Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church v. City of New York
293 F.3d 570 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government's interference with a sincerely held religious practice on private property is subject to strict scrutiny unless the government can demonstrate its actions are based on a neutral, generally applicable law. A general interest in public welfare or preventing what it deems 'inadequate shelter' is insufficient to justify such interference without violating the Free Exercise Clause.
Facts:
- Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church is located at the corner of Fifth Avenue and 55th Street in Manhattan.
- In February 1999, the Church officially designated outdoor areas on its property, including recessed landings and steps, where homeless persons are permitted to sleep at night.
- The Church views providing this space as an integral part of its religious mission to minister to the 'service-resistant homeless' who prefer not to sleep in shelters.
- Those sleeping on the property are given a list of rules, including instructions to clean up and prohibitions on disruptive behavior.
- In November 2001, the City of New York notified the Church that it would no longer permit the homeless to sleep on its outdoor property.
- On three occasions in December 2001, city police entered the Church's property during the night and removed the homeless individuals, threatening them with arrest if they refused to leave.
Procedural Posture:
- Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church and ten homeless persons sued the City of New York in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the City from entering Church property and dispersing the homeless individuals.
- The District Court granted a preliminary injunction in part, prohibiting the City from interfering with homeless persons sleeping on the Church's steps and landings above sidewalk level.
- The District Court denied the injunction as it related to Church property adjacent to the public sidewalk.
- The City of New York, as defendant-appellant, appealed the District Court's order granting the partial preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the City's policy of forcibly removing homeless individuals sleeping on a church's private property, where the church allows them to do so as part of its sincere religious ministry, violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Straub, Circuit Judge
Yes. The City's policy likely violates the Free Exercise Clause because allowing homeless individuals to sleep on its property is a protected exercise of the Church's sincerely held religious beliefs, and the City has failed to justify its interference. The court determined that the Church's provision of outdoor sleeping space is a form of religious conduct protected by the First Amendment. Because the City's actions substantially burden this protected activity, its policy must be justified by either a neutral law of general applicability or a compelling governmental interest pursued by the least restrictive means. The court rejected the City's justifications, finding that the Church's actions did not fall under state regulations for homeless 'shelters,' which contemplate indoor facilities with comprehensive services. The court also declined to extend a legal precedent regarding habitability standards for city-run housing to a private, religious ministry. Because the City could not point to any relevant, neutral law it was enforcing, its actions were subject to strict scrutiny. The City failed this test because its stated interest in preventing 'inadequate shelter' was not compelling enough to override the Church's constitutional rights, and police dispersal was not the least restrictive means to achieve its goal.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that religious conduct, not just belief, receives robust First Amendment protection. It clarifies that a government cannot use inapplicable regulations, such as those for formal shelters, as a pretext to interfere with religiously motivated charitable acts on private property. The case sets a precedent that forces municipalities to identify a specific, applicable, and neutrally applied law before burdening religious exercise. By subjecting the City's actions to strict scrutiny in the absence of such a law, the court significantly raises the legal bar for government intervention in the outreach activities of religious institutions.
