Steelmantown Church v. Carlton County
Steelmantown Church; Edward Bixby; Loving Earth Memorial Gardens, LLC; and Matthew Connell v. Carlton County, Minnesota; Sarah Plante Buhs, in her official capacity as Carlton County Commissioner; Marv Bodie, in his official capacity as Carlton County Commissioner; Thomas R. Proulx, in his official capacity as Carlton County Commissioner; Susan Zmyslony, in her official capacity as Carlton County Commissioner; Dan Reed, in his official capacity as Carlton County Commissioner; Kristine Basilici, in her official capacity as Carlton County Recorder of the Carlton County Recorder’s Office; and Chris Berg, in his official capacity as Carlton County Zoning and […]
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-02323
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 39
In Steelmantown Church v. Carlton County, Minnesota, Judge Provinzino dismissed all claims brought by a New Jersey nonprofit church and its associates seeking to establish a green burial cemetery on county land under a Minnesota private cemetery statute, finding that three plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and that the church itself—because it is incorporated as a nonprofit, not as a religious corporation under Minnesota law—does not qualify to use that statute, and therefore failed to state valid claims under the First Amendment, the Minnesota Constitution, the church autonomy doctrine, or the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Religious organizations, churches, and nonprofit corporations that seek to establish private cemeteries in Minnesota under Chapter 307, particularly those incorporated as nonprofit corporations rather than as religious corporations under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 315; also relevant to any entity attempting to assert RLUIPA or First Amendment land-use claims in the Eighth Circuit.
What happened
In Steelmantown Church v. Carlton County, Minnesota, a church called Steelmantown Church, its president Edward Bixby, a company called Loving Earth Memorial Gardens, LLC, and its president Matthew Connell sued Carlton County and several county officials after the county refused to record paperwork that would have allowed the church to establish a private green burial cemetery on land it owns in Carlton County. Green burials involve placing bodies directly in the ground using organic materials and without synthetic embalming chemicals. The plaintiffs argued that Minnesota law—specifically a statute (Section 307.01) allowing 'private persons' and 'religious corporations' to establish private cemeteries—permitted the church to do so, and that the county's refusal violated their constitutional rights to freely practice religion and their rights under a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, which protects religious organizations from certain land-use restrictions.
The court first found that three of the four plaintiffs—Bixby, Loving Earth, and Connell—had no legal right to bring the lawsuit at all, because they do not own the property and the cemetery statute only gives rights to the property owner. Since none of them could show a personal injury that the court could remedy, their claims were thrown out for lack of what courts call 'standing'—the basic legal requirement that a party must have a real stake in a dispute. Steelmantown Church, as the property owner, did have standing and its claims were found timely enough to be decided on the merits. However, the court determined that Steelmantown is not a 'religious corporation' as that term is defined under Minnesota law, which requires incorporation under a specific Minnesota statute (Chapter 315). Steelmantown is incorporated in New Jersey as a nonprofit—not a religious corporation—and is registered in Minnesota as a foreign nonprofit. Because the cemetery statute only applies to 'private persons' and 'religious corporations' in the Chapter 315 sense, the church simply does not qualify to use that statute, regardless of its religious identity or beliefs.
Judge Provinzino dismissed all of Steelmantown's claims without prejudice, meaning it could potentially refile if circumstances change. The court found that the county's refusal to record the cemetery paperwork did not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause (which prevents the government from favoring one religion over another) because the relevant laws do not prefer any particular religion—they simply require use of a specific corporate form. The Free Exercise Clause claim (which protects people's right to practice their religion) also failed because requiring the church to incorporate differently is at most a procedural inconvenience, not a substantial burden on religious practice. The church autonomy doctrine claim failed because this case does not require courts to dig into religious doctrine or internal church governance. Finally, the RLUIPA claims failed because the church had not shown that it was substantially burdened in its religious exercise, or that secular institutions were treated more favorably than it was, when no facts in the complaint supported those conclusions.
The detailed version
- Steelmantown Church; Edward Bixby; Loving Earth Memorial Gardens, LLC; and Matthew Connell v. Carlton County, Minnesota et al., No. 25-cv-2323 (LMP/LIB)
- United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge
- March 11, 2026
- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss GRANTED; all claims dismissed without prejudice
Background and Parties
Steelmantown Church is a New Jersey 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation registered in Minnesota as a foreign nonprofit under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 303. Edward Bixby is its president. Loving Earth Memorial Gardens, LLC is a Minnesota limited liability company whose president is Matthew Connell. Together, these four plaintiffs sought to establish a private green burial cemetery on a roughly twenty-acre parcel in Carlton County owned by Steelmantown. Defendants are Carlton County, five county commissioners, the county recorder (Kristine Basilici), and the county zoning administrator (Chris Berg).
In April 2023, Steelmantown attempted to record a plat map and survey for a private cemetery under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 307 (which governs private cemeteries and allows 'any private person and any religious corporation' to establish a cemetery on their own land). The County Recorder declined to record the documents, stating that Steelmantown needed to proceed instead under Chapter 306 (which governs public cemeteries but also applies in certain respects to private ones). Around the same time, the Minnesota Legislature enacted a two-year moratorium on new green burial sites (July 1, 2023 through July 1, 2025). Shortly after Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in June 2025, the County enacted its own one-year moratorium (Interim Ordinance 41) on creating or expanding green burial cemeteries in the county, citing the need to study state Department of Health recommendations.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting four counts: (1) violations of the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and the Minnesota Constitution's Freedom of Conscience Clause; (2) violation of the Minnesota Constitution's Freedom of Conscience Clause (overlapping with Count 1 in pleading); (3) violation of the 'Church Autonomy Doctrine' (also called the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine); and (4) violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. Plaintiffs also initially asserted a takings claim (Count I under the Fifth Amendment), but voluntarily abandoned it at oral argument. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and a permanent injunction requiring recording of their plat map and survey under Chapter 307.
Justiciability
Standing of Bixby, Loving Earth, and Connell: The court dismissed the claims of Bixby, Loving Earth, and Connell for lack of Article III standing. Standing requires (1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact, (2) traceability to the defendant's conduct, and (3) redressability by a favorable ruling. Here, only Steelmantown owns the property. Minnesota Statutes § 307.01 grants the right to establish a private cemetery only to 'the person's or corporation's own land.' Bixby, Loving Earth, and Connell have no ownership interest and no independent statutory right; their claims necessarily rest on Steelmantown's rights. The court applied the rule that a plaintiff must assert their own legal rights, not third parties'. The third-party standing exception (requiring a close relationship with the rights-holder plus a hindrance to that party's ability to protect its own interests) does not apply because Steelmantown is itself a party and faces no hindrance. The court also rejected the argument—raised only at oral argument—that a generic request for 'any other relief this Court determines as applicable' constitutes a request for compensatory damages sufficient to create standing. These three plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Ripeness of Steelmantown's Claims: The court rejected Defendants' argument that Steelmantown's claims are unripe due to the county moratorium. Ripeness analysis weighs (1) fitness for judicial decision and (2) hardship from withholding review. The court found Steelmantown's claims largely present questions of law not requiring further factual development, and the County Recorder's flat refusal to record documents under Chapter 307 is a sufficiently final, definitive position. The court also noted that alleged constitutional and statutory violations constitute at least minimal hardship. Whether the moratorium independently bars green burials is a separate question not before the court.
Merits: Applicability of Minnesota Statutes § 307.01
The court first resolved a threshold statutory question: does Chapter 307—specifically § 307.01—permit Steelmantown to establish a private cemetery?
As to the general availability of Chapter 307 for new private cemeteries, the court followed the Minnesota Court of Appeals' nonprecedential but persuasive decision in Nesgoda v. County of Le Sueur, No. A25-0112, 2025 WL 2902039 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2025) (currently under Minnesota Supreme Court review), which held that § 306.01—requiring private cemeteries established after March 1, 1906 to be 'organized and governed by' Chapter 306—addresses governance only, not establishment, and does not foreclose use of § 307.01's platting process. The court agreed, noting § 307.01 unambiguously permits 'any private person and any religious corporation' to establish a cemetery on their own land. Removal of the religious corporation language from § 307.01 would render it superfluous, violating Minnesota's canon against surplusage.
However, the court held that Steelmantown does not qualify under § 307.01 because it is not a 'religious corporation' as that term is used in Minnesota law. Under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 315, a 'religious corporation' is a specific type of entity formed by filing a certificate under that chapter; it is not merely a self-descriptive label. Steelmantown acknowledges it was not organized under Chapter 315 and is instead registered as a foreign nonprofit corporation under Chapter 303. Fundamental corporate law principles hold that a corporation is 'a creature of statute' with only the rights and responsibilities the legislature grants. Steelmantown's home state of New Jersey likewise distinguishes between nonprofit and religious corporations, and Steelmantown is incorporated there as a nonprofit, not a religious corporation. Minnesota Statutes § 317A.051 expressly excludes 'religious corporations' from the general nonprofit corporation statutes, demonstrating that these are distinct entity types. The court concluded Steelmantown simply is not the type of entity that may invoke § 307.01.
Steelmantown's Constitutional and Statutory Claims
Establishment Clause (First Amendment): The court applied the current Supreme Court framework from Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), which requires analysis based on historical practices rather than the now-abandoned Lemon v. Kurtzman test. Under this standard, a plaintiff must show the challenged practice aligns with a historically disfavored establishmentarian practice. Steelmantown made no such showing; to the contrary, it relied on the long legislative history of § 307.01 (existing in some form since at least 1905) to support its own arguments. Additionally, § 307.01 does not prefer any religion or denomination—it is open to 'any' religious corporation regardless of faith, and Chapter 315 does not require disclosure of religious beliefs. The court also noted that granting Steelmantown the religious corporation treatment it seeks while denying the same to an otherwise identical secular nonprofit would itself raise Establishment Clause concerns. Dismissed.
Free Exercise Clause (First Amendment): The Free Exercise Clause does not relieve anyone of compliance with a valid, neutral, and generally applicable law. Section 307.01 is neutral and generally applicable—it does not target religious practices. The only obstacle to Steelmantown establishing its cemetery is its choice to register as a nonprofit corporation rather than a religious corporation under Chapter 315. The court found that Steelmantown had not plausibly alleged this requirement substantially burdens its religious practice: it did not explain why maintaining nonprofit status is central to its religious beliefs, why reincorporating under Chapter 315 would change its religious conduct, or how the procedural requirements are financially or otherwise burdensome. The court distinguished Hobby Lobby (decided under RFRA, which goes beyond constitutional requirements) and noted that Steelmantown's chosen corporate form is a consequence of its own business decisions, not government coercion. Dismissed.
Minnesota Constitution Freedom of Conscience Clause (Counts II and III): Minnesota's Freedom of Conscience Clause offers broader protection than the First Amendment, but still requires the plaintiff to show that compliance with the challenged law requires 'a change in religious conduct or philosophy.' Steelmantown did not plausibly allege that incorporating or reincorporating under Chapter 315 would require any such change. Changing corporate form is not a change in religious conduct or philosophy. Dismissed.
Church Autonomy Doctrine (Count IV): The church autonomy doctrine (also called the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine) ordinarily functions as an affirmative defense, not an independent cause of action. The court was unaware of—and Steelmantown cited no—authority recognizing it as a direct cause of action. Additionally, resolving this dispute does not require any inquiry into religious law or internal church governance. Dismissed.
RLUIPA—Substantial Burden (Count V): RLUIPA prohibits government implementation of a land-use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the government shows a compelling interest pursued by the least restrictive means. A 'substantial burden' must go beyond mere inconvenience and put substantial pressure on the institution to change its religious exercise. The court found that the only impediment to Steelmantown's plans is its chosen corporate form, not any government prohibition on its religious practices. Chapters 306 and 307 expressly contemplate green burial cemeteries. Defendants never told Steelmantown it could never establish a green burial cemetery; they only said it could not do so under Chapter 307 given its current corporate form. Steelmantown did not allege that incorporating under Chapter 315 would force it to change its religious conduct or beliefs. The court also noted that Steelmantown could potentially create a separate Chapter 315 religious corporation and transfer the land to it with minimal cost and effort. Dismissed.
RLUIPA—Equal Terms (Count V): RLUIPA's equal-terms provision bars land-use regulations that treat a religious institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious institution. The Eighth Circuit has not resolved whether a 'similarly situated' comparator is required (as most circuits hold), but the court found it unnecessary to decide because Steelmantown failed to allege any facts showing that any secular or other institution was treated more favorably when attempting to establish a private cemetery under § 307.01. Its allegations of unequal treatment were speculative and conclusory. Dismissed.
Disposition
- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12): GRANTED.
- Bixby's, Loving Earth's, and Connell's claims: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing.
- Steelmantown's claims: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The takings claim (Count I) was voluntarily abandoned by Plaintiffs and accordingly dismissed.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 39-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.