Federal Judge Rules for Church in Homeless Shelter Zoning Dispute

​A recent case in Castle Rock, Colorado, tests the boundaries of government’s ability to limit the free exercise of religion, which seems to be a pastime for Colorado officials. This time official restrictions test the role of religious exercise in the novel context of zoning regulations.
 
Since 2019, the local Rock Church has provided shelter to homeless residents of Castle Rock. It offers them the use of RVs on its property for temporary housing. Since that time, town officials have repeatedly attempted to block those efforts, citing zoning restrictions.
 
In January, following unsuccessful attempts at negotiation, the Rock Church brought suit against Castle Rock in federal court, alleging First Amendment violations. It also alleges violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which prohibits governments from imposing land use rules that substantially burden religious exercise.
 
The Rock Church says that sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry is a religious mandate specifically required by the Bible. They argue that Castle Rock’s repeated intervention to enforce the church grounds’ designation as a “Planned Development” zone – which, the town argues, does not permit the use of RVs for temporary housing – substantially burdens the free exercise of their religion.
 
A federal court has now preliminarily enjoined the town from enforcing its land use laws against the church and its temporary shelter ministry.
 
While the preliminary injunction is a positive first step, it remains to be seen how far the court will finally rule in this case. RLUIPA bars enforcement of a “land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of … a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates” it is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” That is a very tough standard for the government to meet.
 
This strict scrutiny standard of constitutional law holds that laws that place burdens on constitutional rights are presumptively invalid unless the government can prove their enforcement to be vital. The government must also show that no other less burdensome means of achieving their aims exists. RLUIPA offers a standard of legal review that provides an ingrained level of defensive protection for our rights.
 
To ensure that the town did not try to question the beliefs and practices of the church, U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico wrote in his opinion:
 
“To the extent there is a dispute about whether the Church’s stated beliefs actually require it to provide shelter on its own property, there is no reason to second-guess the Church at this point, regardless of how idiosyncratic or mistaken the Town may find its beliefs to be … To hold otherwise would invite the sort of ‘trolling through a person’s … religious beliefs’ and ‘governmental monitoring or second-guessing’ of ‘religious beliefs and practices’ that … is forbidden by the First Amendment.”
 
Judge Domenico also found that Castle Rock articulated no specific, compelling governmental interest in preventing the on-site sheltering of homeless people on Rock Church land. The RVs are parked on large lots at considerable distance from residential areas. Even local officials agree there have been no safety concerns or incidents to date.
 
Although this is just a preliminary injunction, the Rock Church will, for the time being, be able to resume efforts to house the homeless. Religious expression through charity and action is surely the kind of religious expression Congress had in mind when it passed RLUIPA.