Case 1:17-cv-00804-SAG Document 176 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 47 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND HUNT VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH, ) INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00804-SAG ) BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) INTERVENOR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MEMORANDUM IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF 2000 JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General CHRISTOPHER A. BATES Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General LESLEY FARBY Assistant Branch Director LISA A. OLSON Senior Counsel United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Room 12200 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 514-5633 Facsimile: (202) 616-8470 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the United States Case 1:17-cv-00804-SAG Document 176 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 STATUTORY BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2 I. RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions ...................................................................................................... 2 II. Legislative History ........................................................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................... 7 I. The Principle of Constitutional Avoidance Requires That the Court Decide the Constitutionality of RLUIPA Only If Necessary ............................................................................. 8 II. If the Court Reaches the Question of RLUIPA’s Constitutionality, It Should Hold That RLUIPA Is Constitutional................................................................................................................ 9 A. RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions Do Not Violate the Tenth Amendment Because They Are a Proper Exercise of Congress’s Enumerated Powers........................... 9 B. RLUIPA § 2(a)(1), As Applied Through § 2(a)(2)(B), Is a Valid Exercise of Congress’s Authority Under the Commerce Clause .......................................................... 11 C. RLUIPA § 2(a)(1), As Applied Through § 2(a)(2)(C), Is a Valid Exercise of Congress’s Authority Under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment ............................. 14 1. RLUIPA § 2(a)(1), As Applied Through § 2(a)(2)(C), Codifies the Supreme Court’s “Individualized Assessments” Doctrine .................................... 15 2. Even If RLUIPA § 2(a)(1), as Applied Through § 2(a)(2)(C), Extends Beyond Established Constitutional Protections, It Nevertheless Represents a Permissible Exercise of Congress’s Power to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment ............................................................................................................ 20 a. Congress Had Evidence of a Pattern of Local Government Land Use Decisions Burdening Free Exercise ........................................... 21 b. RLUIPA § 2(a)(1), As Applied Through § 2(a)(2)(C), Satisfies The Congruence And Proportionality Test ....................................................... 23 D. RLUIPA § 2(b) Is a Valid Exercise of Congress’s Authority Under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment Because It Enforces the Constitution’s Prohibitions on Discrimination Against, or Exclusion of, Religious Assemblies .................................................................................. 24 i Case 1:17-cv-00804-SAG Document 176 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 47 1. RLUIPA §§ 2(b)(1) and (2) Enforce the Constitution’s Prohibitions on Discrimination Against Religious Assemblies as Compared to Analogous Secular Land Uses and on the Basis of Religion or Religious Denomination ........................................................................................ 25 a. Non-Discrimination Elements of the Free Exercise Clause ...................... 25 b. Non-Discrimination Elements of the Establishment Clause ...................... 28 c. Non-Discrimination Mandate of the Equal Protection Clause .................. 28 2. RLUIPA §§ 2(b)(1) and (2) Enforce the Constitution’s Prohibitions Against Categorical Exclusion of Activities Protected By the First Amendment ............................................................................................................ 30 E. RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions Do Not Violate the Establishment Clause ..................... 31 1. RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions Have a Permissible Secular Purpose ................. 33 2. RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions Have a Permissible Secular Effect .................... 34 3. RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions Do Not Create Excessive Entanglement between Government and Religion ................................................ 35 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 36 ii Case 1:17-cv-00804-SAG Document 176 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 47 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)............................................................................................................................... 35 Alpine Christian Fellowship v. Cty. Comm’rs of Pitkin Cty., 870 F. Supp. 991 (D. Colo. 1994).......................................................................................................... 17 Al-Salam Mosque Found. v. City of Palos Heights, No. 00C-4596, 2001 WL 204772 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 1, 2001).................................................................... 17 American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019)........................................................................................................................... 33 Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936)................................................................................................................................. 8 Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill. Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994)......................................................................................................................... 28, 29 Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988)............................................................................................................................... 35 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)............................................................................................................................... 14 Castle Hills First Baptist Church v. City of Castle Hills, No. 01-1149, 2004 WL 546792 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2004)..................................................... 10, 12, 18 Centro Familiar Christiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 615 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2009), rev’d on other grounds, 651 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................. 27, 28 Chabad Lubavitch v. Borough of Litchfield, Conn., 796 F. Supp. 2d 333 (D. Conn. 2011)............................................................................................. passim Church of the Hills of the Twp. of Bedminster v. Twp. of Bedminster, No. 05-3332, 2006 WL 462674 (D. N.J. Feb. 24, 2006) ................................................................ passim Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)............................................................................................................. 15, 17, 25, 26 City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)........................................................................................................................ passim iii Case 1:17-cv-00804-SAG Document 176 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 47 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985)............................................................................................................................... 31 City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986)................................................................................................................................. 31 The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)................................................................................................................................... 14 Congregation of Kol Ami v. Abington Twp., No. 01-1919, 2004 WL 1837037 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2004) ........................................................... passim Congregation Rabbinical Coll. of Tartikov, Inc. v. Vill. of Pomona, 138 F. Supp. 3d 352 (S.D.N.Y 2015), aff’d in part & rev’d in part on other ground, 945 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2019)..................................... 11, 12 Cornerstone Bible Church v. City of Hastings, 948 F.2d 464 (8th Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................................. 30 Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987)................................................................................................................... 31, 32, 34 Cottonwood Christian Ctr. v. Cypress Redevelopment Agency, 218 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ........................................................................................... 17, 27 CSX Transp., Inc. v. N.Y. State Office of Real Prop. Servs., 306