First Lutheran Church v. St. Paul, City of, The

Background

First Lutheran Church operates in a residential area of St. Paul, Minnesota. The church described helping poor and homeless people as an important part of its religious identity and had operated programs providing meals, health and other services, clothing, and household items. In 2017, it allowed Listening House of St. Paul, a nonprofit dayshelter and community center, to operate from the church’s basement.

The City initially approved the arrangement through a Determination of Similar Use with three conditions. After neighbors appealed, the Planning Commission modified the determination and added eleven more conditions. The City Council later adopted Resolution 18-145, which imposed fourteen conditions in total. Two conditions were central to the motion: one required a plainly visible sign restricting after-hours use of the church grounds, and another generally limited Listening House to twenty guests per day. First Lutheran said it wanted to allow people to remain on its property after hours and that the twenty-person limit would interfere with its religious mission and services.

First Lutheran sued the City under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law protecting religious exercise from certain land-use restrictions, and under the First Amendment and Minnesota and federal constitutions. It sought a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order issued before the case is finally resolved.

Justiciability

The City argued that First Lutheran lacked standing and that its claims were not ripe for review. The court rejected both arguments. It found an injury because the resolution specifically applied to First Lutheran and its tenant, the City had begun enforcing the conditions, and noncompliance could lead to penalties including revocation of the City’s approval. The court also found the dispute ready for review because Resolution 18-145 represented the City’s final position on the property’s use and withholding review would impose hardship on First Lutheran.

Preliminary-injunction analysis

The court considered the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest. Because the resolution followed several administrative appeals and public proceedings, the court required First Lutheran to show a likelihood of success rather than merely a fair chance of prevailing.

RLUIPA substantial-burden claim

The court concluded that First Lutheran’s partnership with Listening House was religious exercise because the church used its property to serve homeless, needy, and poor people in ways consistent with its religious mission and past practices.

The court held that the sign requirement imposed a substantial burden. In the court’s view, the requirement conflicted with First Lutheran’s practice of welcoming people to its property regardless of their economic, physical, mental, or social circumstances. It also compelled the church to communicate that people were welcome only during certain hours. The court concluded that this went beyond an inconvenience and put substantial pressure on First Lutheran to change its religious practice and message.

The court also held that the twenty-person limit imposed a substantial burden. Listening House served approximately 50 to 60 guests per day, while the church’s basement had a stated fire-code capacity of 122 people. The court found that the limit would force the organizations to turn people away, reduce the ability to recruit volunteers and provide services, and undermine the church’s welcoming message.

The court found that First Lutheran was likely to prove that neither condition furthered a compelling government interest in the required way. For the sign requirement, the City said the condition would help enforce trespassing laws, but the court reasoned that people on church property with First Lutheran’s consent were not trespassing. For the guest limit, the court was not persuaded that limiting guests to twenty per day would reduce neighborhood overcrowding or petty offenses. The court also concluded that the sign requirement and the twenty-person, per-day limit were not the least restrictive means of serving the City’s interests.

The court did not find, at this early stage and on the limited record, that the other twelve conditions substantially burdened First Lutheran’s religious exercise. It characterized those conditions, individually and collectively, as appearing to impose inconveniences rather than substantial pressure to change religious practices.

Other claims

First Lutheran did not show a likelihood of success on its RLUIPA equal-terms claim. The court found that First Lutheran had not provided enough evidence that Metropolitan State University, Dayton’s Bluff Library, or The Goat Coffee House were similarly situated secular comparators. The court left open the possibility that a more developed record could support that claim, including the allegation that the City invited appeals of the original determination after the zoning code’s ten-day appeal period.

The court also found that First Lutheran had not shown a likelihood of success on its First Amendment free-exercise claim. The record did not clearly show that the City acted because of First Lutheran’s religious status or beliefs, although a statement attributed to City Councilwoman Jane Prince was potentially concerning and left the record unclear.

The court rejected First Lutheran’s argument that the twenty-person limit violated a free-standing right of assembly, finding that the limit regulated conduct rather than speech and that First Lutheran had not shown a significant effect on its ability to express viewpoints or engage in expressive association.

The court did find that First Lutheran was likely to succeed on its First Amendment free-speech challenge to the sign requirement. It determined that the requirement compelled First Lutheran to communicate a message it opposed and was content-based because it required a sign restricting after-hours use of church property. Applying strict scrutiny, the court held that the requirement neither furthered a compelling government interest nor used the least restrictive means of doing so. The court clarified that it was not deciding whether the City could limit after-hours use by another method; it held only that the City could not accomplish that goal through this required notice withdrawing the church’s consent.

Disposition

Judge Tunheim found that the remaining preliminary-injunction factors favored First Lutheran or slightly favored it. The court found irreparable harm from the likely violations of First Amendment and RLUIPA rights, found that the balance of harms favored First Lutheran, and found that the public interest slightly favored an injunction. The court waived the bond requirement because the City did not object and did not show costs or monetary damages from the injunction.

The order states that First Lutheran’s motion for a preliminary injunction was granted in part. The City of St. Paul and those acting in concert with it were preliminarily restrained and enjoined from enforcing: (1) the requirement that a sign be posted restricting after-hours use of the church grounds; and (2) the requirement limiting the number of guests to twenty per day. The order did not enjoin the other twelve conditions.