Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside
366 F.3d 1214, 2004 WL 842527, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7706 (2004)
Rule of Law:
A land use regulation that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution, such as by excluding churches and synagogues from a business district while permitting private clubs and lodges, violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and is subject to strict scrutiny under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. RLUIPA itself is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Fourteenth Amendment's Section 5, consistent with the Free Exercise, Establishment, and Equal Protection Clauses.
Facts:
- The Town of Surfside, Florida, is a small coastal town approximately one square mile in size.
- Midrash Sephardi and Young Israel are two small Orthodox Jewish synagogues serving the Surfside area, with over one hundred members, and experience triple attendance during winter tourist months.
- Surfside's Zoning Ordinance (SZO) divides the town into eight districts and allows churches and synagogues only in the "RD-1 two-family residential district" by conditional use permit, but prohibits them in the business district.
- The SZO permits various secular uses, including private clubs and lodge halls, health clubs, dance studios, music instruction studios, modeling schools, language schools, and schools of athletic instruction, in the business district, typically above the first floor.
- Midrash Sephardi leases the second floor of a building within Surfside's business district on Harding Avenue.
- Young Israel previously leased space in the Coronado Hotel in Surfside's tourist district and later joined Midrash Sephardi at the Harding Avenue location.
- Adherents to Orthodox Judaism are forbidden from using cars on the Sabbath and religious holidays, requiring them to walk to services; many congregants reside outside walking distance of the permitted RD-1 district.
- Surfside claimed the SZO was designed to invigorate the business district and create a strong tax base by concentrating retail uses, arguing that churches and synagogues would erode the tax base and contribute little synergy, unlike private clubs.
Procedural Posture:
- In May 1999, the Town of Surfside initiated two state court actions against Midrash Sephardi, Young Israel, and their respective lessors to enjoin the use of their locations as synagogues and to impose civil penalties for alleged violations of the Surfside Zoning Ordinance (SZO).
- These state court actions were removed to federal district court (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) and subsequently dismissed without prejudice.
- In July 1999, Midrash Sephardi and Young Israel filed the instant action in federal district court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Surfside responded with an answer and filed a two-count counterclaim seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees against the congregations.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Surfside on five of six counts of the congregations' complaint and denied summary judgment in full for the congregations.
- In November 2000, the congregations filed a third amended complaint, adding an additional claim based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Surfside on all aspects of the congregants' RLUIPA claim and subsequently granted Surfside's counterclaim for an injunction against the congregations.
- Midrash Sephardi and Young Israel appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (appellants are the congregations, appellee is Surfside).
- The Eleventh Circuit issued a stay of injunction pending appeal.
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 a municipal zoning ordinance that permits secular private clubs and lodges in a business district but prohibits churches and synagogues violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and is RLUIPA a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilson, Circuit Judge
Yes, a municipal zoning ordinance that permits secular private clubs and lodges in a business district but prohibits churches and synagogues violates RLUIPA's equal terms provision and the First and Fourteenth Amendments; RLUIPA is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court first found that the congregations' argument that walking a few extra blocks to a permitted zone constituted a "substantial burden" on religious exercise under RLUIPA § (a) was unpersuasive. A "substantial burden" requires more than mere inconvenience; it is akin to significant pressure to forego religious precepts or mandating religious conduct, which the relocation did not entail. However, the court found a violation of RLUIPA § (b)(1), the "equal terms" provision, because Surfside's zoning ordinance (SZO § 90-152) permitted private clubs and lodges in the business district while prohibiting churches and synagogues. The court reasoned that both private clubs and religious institutions fall within the ordinary meaning of "assembly or institution," which is the relevant category for comparison under RLUIPA, rather than a more stringent "similarly situated" test. This differential treatment triggered strict scrutiny, indicating a departure from the Free Exercise Clause's requirements of neutrality and general applicability. Surfside's justifications for excluding religious assemblies (to promote retail synergy and prevent tax base erosion) were deemed both overinclusive (synagogues contribute to local businesses) and underinclusive (private clubs, which are not primarily for profit and meet irregularly, do not inherently contribute more to economic goals than religious institutions). Thus, the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest. The court then upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA. It found RLUIPA to be a proper exercise of Congress's Section 5 power under the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional rights, noting it was "congruent and proportional" to remedying widespread discrimination against religious land uses, as evidenced in the legislative record, by codifying existing Free Exercise, Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection principles. Applying the Lemon v. Kurtzman test, the court determined RLUIPA had a secular purpose (alleviating government interference with religious exercise), its primary effect neither advanced nor inhibited religion (it merely lifted burdens, not subsidized or facilitated religion), and it did not foster excessive government entanglement. Finally, the court concluded that RLUIPA did not violate the Tenth Amendment, as it was a valid exercise of Congress's § 5 power and did not compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs but rather preempted discriminatory laws.
Analysis:
This ruling significantly strengthens RLUIPA's equal terms provision, providing religious institutions with a powerful tool to challenge zoning ordinances that exclude them while permitting secular assemblies. The court's clarification that a traditional "similarly situated" analysis is not required under RLUIPA § (b)(1), instead focusing on the broader category of "assembly or institution," simplifies the burden on plaintiffs. Furthermore, the decision's robust defense of RLUIPA's constitutionality against First, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendment challenges ensures the Act's continued viability as a federal safeguard against religious discrimination in land use. This precedent will compel municipalities to scrutinize their zoning regulations for neutrality and general applicability, potentially leading to more inclusive land use policies for religious organizations nationwide.
