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

Background

First Lutheran Church challenged Resolution 18-145, the City of St. Paul’s final decision imposing fourteen conditions on the church’s partnership with Listening House of St. Paul, a nonprofit dayshelter and community center operating from the church’s basement. The conditions included limits on hours and guests, restrictions on outdoor use, requirements concerning incidents and guest policies, and a requirement that a sign restrict after-hours use of church property so the City could enforce trespassing laws.

First Lutheran alleged that the conditions violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise, speech, and assembly, the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection and due-process guarantees, and the Minnesota Constitution’s right of conscience. It also sought review of Resolution 18-145 under Minnesota Statute § 462.361. The City moved to dismiss the entire action for lack of standing and ripeness and moved to dismiss each claim for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

The court had previously found that First Lutheran had standing and that the case was ready for review. It therefore denied the City’s motion on those grounds.

The court also denied dismissal of the RLUIPA claims. First Lutheran’s substantial-burden claim had already been found likely to succeed at the preliminary-injunction stage. Although the court had not found a likely success on the merits of the RLUIPA equal-terms claim at that earlier stage, the church’s allegations were sufficient to proceed. The church alleged that some restrictions did not apply to other nearby properties and that the City invited appeals of the church’s approval more than three months after issuing it, well beyond the ten-day appeal period in the zoning code.

The court denied dismissal of the First Amendment claims. It had previously found that First Lutheran was likely to succeed on its free-speech claim. Although the court had not found likely success on the free-exercise claim at the preliminary-injunction stage, it concluded that the church could plausibly develop that claim on a fuller record. The free-assembly claim could also proceed.

The court separately analyzed the two parts of First Lutheran’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. It denied dismissal of the equal-protection claim because the allegations supported an inference that the City acted with discriminatory purpose or intent. The court granted dismissal of the substantive due-process claim because the challenged conditions did not plausibly appear so irrational or extreme that they would shock the conscience. The claim was dismissed without prejudice because First Lutheran also alleged that Resolution 18-145 was unconstitutionally vague but had not identified the specific conditions or language it challenged as vague.

The court denied dismissal of the Minnesota constitutional right-of-conscience claim. The City conceded that this claim relied on the same facts and allegations as the RLUIPA and First Amendment claims, which the court allowed to proceed.

The court also denied dismissal of the claim seeking judicial review under Minnesota Statute § 462.361. First Lutheran plausibly alleged that the City’s appeal process was untimely and contrary to the zoning code and that the resulting resolution was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, irrational, and unsupported by the record. The court stated that the City’s arguments and supporting evidence were better addressed at trial or on a motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

The court ordered that the City’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. It granted the motion as to First Lutheran’s substantive due-process claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice. It denied the motion in all other respects. Judge John R. Tunheim issued the order on August 8, 2018.