Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of

Background

These related cases arose from Belle Plaine’s creation and later elimination of a limited public forum in Veterans Memorial Park. In February 2017, the city adopted a resolution allowing individuals and organizations to erect privately owned displays honoring veterans, military branches, and veterans’ organizations affiliated with Belle Plaine. The resolution allowed the city to close the forum and terminate permits by giving ten days’ written notice.

The Satanic Temple applied for and received a permit on March 29, 2017. The permit stated that it was effective for one year, and the approved application required compliance with the city’s forum policy. The Temple spent money and effort designing and constructing a monument and obtained the required liability insurance. On July 17, 2017, the city rescinded the policy and eliminated the forum. The next day, the city notified the Temple and reimbursed its permit-application fee. The Temple never erected its display.

First Lawsuit: Summary Judgment

The Temple’s first lawsuit originally included federal statutory, constitutional, Minnesota constitutional, contract-related, and promissory-estoppel claims. The court had previously dismissed the constitutional and statutory claims for failure to state a claim, without prejudice. The only remaining claim was promissory estoppel under Minnesota law.

The court granted Belle Plaine’s motion for summary judgment on that claim. Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court concluded that a jury could find that the permit conveyed a clear promise: the Temple would have an opportunity to place a display for at least ten days and up to one year, and the city would provide ten days’ notice if it ended the permit early. The city’s ability to close the forum was not entirely optional because the policy required notice before permits were terminated.

The court nevertheless held that the Temple could not establish detrimental reliance. The Temple had begun pursuing construction of the monument before receiving the permit, and the undisputed evidence showed that the city fulfilled the promise by giving the Temple a limited-time opportunity to display the monument. The Temple did not use that opportunity during the nearly four months before the city terminated the permit. The court also found that the permit did not promise reimbursement for the Temple’s construction expenses, that the Temple’s contributions exceeded those expenses, and that the Temple had not provided evidence of reputational harm. The court further held that enforcing the promise was not required to prevent an injustice because the Temple received the opportunity promised and the city reimbursed the permit fee.

The court denied the Temple’s motion to strike evidence submitted in connection with summary judgment.

Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Order

The Temple appealed a January 26, 2021 order that partly denied its motion to compel discovery and denied its requests to amend the pretrial scheduling order and complaint.

The court affirmed that order. It held that discovery into the city’s motives for adopting and rescinding the policy was not relevant to the elements of promissory estoppel. The court also held that the Temple had not shown good cause to change the scheduling order. The deadline to amend pleadings was October 15, 2019, but the Temple did not seek to amend until nearly fourteen months later and did not seek to change the scheduling order until discovery closed.

The court agreed that the proposed amended complaint was also futile. A proposed amendment is futile when it could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The proposed free-speech claim was futile because the city was not required to keep the limited public forum open indefinitely, and the Temple did not plausibly allege that the forum was closed in a viewpoint-discriminatory way. The proposed free-exercise claim was futile because the Temple did not plausibly allege a substantial burden on religious practice; the closure applied equally to all. The proposed Establishment Clause claim was futile because the alleged offense caused by the Christian monument did not amount to governmental coercion, particularly where members of the public had an equal opportunity to apply for a permit. The proposed equal-protection claim was futile because the Temple did not plausibly allege discriminatory treatment, purpose, or impact, and the Constitution did not require policymakers to give every interested person the same access to policy discussions. The proposed due-process claim was futile because the permit did not create a protected property interest: it could be terminated with ten days’ notice, and the city provided that notice.

Second Lawsuit: Dismissal

The Temple filed a second lawsuit asserting constitutional claims arising from the same events. Belle Plaine moved to dismiss, arguing that claim preclusion barred the claims.

The court granted the motion to dismiss on that basis. Claim preclusion prevents a party from bringing a later lawsuit involving the same parties and claims when those claims were raised or could have been raised earlier. The court held that the second lawsuit was materially identical to the proposed amended complaint whose filing had been denied in the first lawsuit. Under the governing precedent, denial of leave to amend can have preclusive effect even when the denial was based on untimeliness and even when the earlier claims had initially been dismissed without prejudice. The court did not need to decide the city’s alternative argument that the second complaint failed to state a claim.

The court denied the Temple’s motion to strike in the second lawsuit.

Sanctions and Disposition

The court granted Belle Plaine’s motion for sanctions against the Temple’s counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court concluded that filing the second lawsuit attempted to circumvent the denial of leave to amend, was frivolous under controlling claim-preclusion law, and wasted the city’s and the court’s resources. The sanctions were limited to the attorneys’ fees Belle Plaine incurred responding to the second complaint and seeking sanctions. The court ordered Belle Plaine to file a motion and supporting evidence concerning those fees within fourteen days after the order.

The order therefore granted summary judgment on the promissory-estoppel claim, denied the Temple’s motions to strike in both cases, affirmed the magistrate judge’s January 26, 2021 order, granted dismissal of the second lawsuit, and granted sanctions. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order.