Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of

Background

Belle Plaine’s City Council adopted Resolution 17-020 on February 21, 2017, creating a limited public forum in Veterans Memorial Park for privately owned displays honoring or memorializing veterans, military branches, and veterans’ organizations affiliated with Belle Plaine. The resolution required the display owner to maintain liability coverage and allowed the city to end the forum by giving permit holders 10 days’ written notice.

The Satanic Temple applied for a permit on February 23, 2017, received one on March 29, 2017, and later notified the city that its memorial monument was complete. TST alleged that it spent substantial sums designing and constructing the display and obtained the required insurance. Before TST erected the display, the City Council adopted Resolution 17-090 on July 17, 2017. That resolution rescinded the earlier policy, eliminated the limited public forum, and required private displays or memorials in the park to be removed within a reasonable period. The city notified TST of the change and reimbursed its permit-application fee.

Claims and motions

TST sued the City of Belle Plaine, the mayor, and four city council members. Its claims included federal and Minnesota free-exercise and free-speech claims, a federal equal-protection claim, a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and promissory estoppel. TST moved for judgment on the pleadings on its federal free-speech claim. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the entire complaint. Judgment on the pleadings is a ruling based on the pleadings when no material factual dispute needs to be resolved; the court applies the same legal standard used for a motion to dismiss and asks whether the complaint plausibly states a claim.

TST conceded that Counts IV, VI, and VIII, which the opinion describes as contract-related claims, should be dismissed. The court agreed and dismissed those counts without prejudice.

Individual defendants

The court dismissed TST’s federal civil-rights claims under Section 1983 against the mayor and council members in their individual capacities. Section 1983 provides a way to sue state or local officials for certain constitutional violations. The court held that voting on the city resolutions was legislative activity, for which local legislators have absolute immunity from Section 1983 liability. The court also concluded that no basis for injunctive relief remained against the individual defendants because the other claims were being disposed of in the order.

Free-exercise claims

The court granted the city’s motion as to Counts I and IX, TST’s federal and Minnesota free-exercise claims. For the federal claim, the court said TST had not alleged facts showing that Resolution 17-090 substantially burdened religious conduct, expression of a central religious belief, or an activity fundamental to TST’s religion. For the Minnesota claim, the court accepted that TST sufficiently alleged that its beliefs were sincere but held that TST did not allege facts showing that the resolution burdened those beliefs, required a change in religious conduct or philosophy, or required conduct inconsistent with its beliefs.

Free-speech claims

The court granted the city’s motion as to Counts II and X, TST’s federal and Minnesota free-speech claims, and denied TST’s cross-motion as to Count II. The court treated the park forum created by Resolution 17-020 as a limited public forum, meaning a government-created forum open to certain types of speakers or subjects. The court explained that the government need not keep such a forum open indefinitely, but restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

The court held that TST’s complaint did not plausibly allege that Resolution 17-090 was unreasonable, discriminatory, or applied differently to TST than to other entities. The complaint’s allegation that the Belle Plaine Veterans Club had been able to display its memorial before voluntarily removing it did not establish unequal treatment, because that organization’s display was completed before Resolution 17-090 was adopted. The court concluded that the Minnesota free-speech claim failed for the same reasons because the Minnesota protection was coextensive with the First Amendment for purposes of the analysis.

Equal-protection claim

The court granted the city’s motion as to Count III. It held that TST did not allege that it was similarly situated in all relevant respects to an entity that received more favorable treatment. The court also held that TST did not allege facts showing that Resolution 17-090 was discriminatory on its face or was adopted with both discriminatory purpose and discriminatory impact. The resolution’s text applied to all private displays or memorials in the park, and the difference in timing between TST’s display and the Veterans Club’s display did not, as pleaded, show discriminatory treatment.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claim

The court granted the city’s motion as to Count V. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, can apply when a substantial burden is imposed through a land-use regulation and the claimant has a qualifying property interest, such as ownership, a lease, or an easement. TST argued that its permit was an easement. The court held that TST did not allege facts plausibly showing that its one-year revocable permit created an easement or another qualifying property interest. The court also held that TST did not identify a zoning or landmarking law under which Belle Plaine acted. Accordingly, TST did not plead facts invoking RLUIPA’s protections.

Promissory-estoppel claim

The court denied the city’s motion as to Count VII. Promissory estoppel is a claim seeking enforcement of a promise when a contract may not exist. The court held that TST adequately alleged a clear promise through the permit, reliance through its design and construction expenses and purchase of liability insurance, foreseeable reliance by the city, and potential injustice if the promise were not enforced.

The court rejected the city’s argument that Minnesota Statutes Section 412.201 required dismissal. Although that statute could prevent the permit from being a valid contract under the circumstances, promissory estoppel does not require a valid contract. The court therefore allowed Count VII to proceed under this order.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted in part and denied in part. The court ordered that Counts I through VI and VIII through X be dismissed without prejudice. The court denied The Satanic Temple’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Count II.