Anchor Stone is a church that aims to bring Christian beliefs to first generation Taiwanese Americans. The church is based in Santa Ana and hoped to move away from gathering in homes and temporary spaces as their membership has grown. After finding land to purchase, Anchor Stone discussed with the city to ensure they would be able to use the space for religious services. The property was zoned in a professional district meaning the church would have to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) after purchase. The city told the church that they would be able to obtain a CUP with no difficulty and could use the property as a church.
 |
Once the church purchased the land, however, the city denied Anchor Stone’s CUP request despite what the city had told them prior to purchase. Apparently, the churches property did not fit their “general plan” document, and the designation of the property prevents the land from being used as a place of assembly. Anchor Stone also claims that the city officials were hostile towards them and their request.
Anchor Stone tried to appeal the denial based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The law was created to prevent “religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws” and ensure that land regulation does not significantly burden a religious organization’s right to practice. However, since RLUIPA is a federal law, the city of Santa Ana argues that they do not have to comply. The U.S Department of Justice believes otherwise when discussing their statement on the case. This could indicate how the government could react on this case considering that a large government entity sides with the church.
In February, First Liberty Institute filed Anchor Stone Christian Church v City of Santa Ana arguing that Santa Ana is violating the Free Exercise clause and RLUIPA by their zoning laws. The zoning laws of Santa Ana require churches to obtain discretionary approval through a CUP, but secular establishments are not required too. The Liberty Institute explains “the City’s actions are plainly discriminatory” and that “the city has no explanation why hundreds of employees ‘assembling’ in multi-level offices for work on Monday is permitted, but a few dozen congregants gathering for worship on Sunday is not.” The general plan that the city uses to justify their decision, First Liberty argues, is full of inconsistencies as assembly is not even directly mentioned within the document and allowed other establishments of assembly such as art galleries and restaurants to open. This indicates non-neutrality towards religious groups as they are not given the same opportunities as secular organizations. As well, the city seems to be drawing conclusions based on a vague law. While in some scenarios this could be fine, since the case relates to Free Exercise, strict scrutiny must be enacted as the interpretation of the bill burdens the Free Exercise rights of Anchor Stone as now they are limited in their ways to congregate without an official church.
First Liberty describes possible discrimination against this specific establishment stating “gross favoritism and discrimination” as they offered another church a permit across the street. The church is primarily Chinese and Taiwanese Americans, possibly going against white Christian nationalist ideals. That poses possible issues with the Establishment Clause as the Santa Ana would be directly favoring one religious group over another.
The City of Santa Ana believes that the claim of religious burden is the churches way of trying to work around city laws. A councilman described that there is a compelling interest in denying the church a CUP because of “public health and safety” as the church would increase traffic.
In my opinion, I believe that the city of Santa Ana is burdening Anchor Stone’s Free Exercise rights. Santa Ana refusing to allow Anchor Stone to open while allowing secular establishments of assembly shows discrimination towards religious groups. While the city of Santa Ana claims there is a compelling interest, since the compelling interest regards safety and traffic issues, the denial of opening should apply to all businesses. If a movie theater were to open, the risk of increased traffic and decreased public safety would still apply, but they would allow the establishment to open as they would not be subject to discretionary approval. This shows how Santa Ana’s zoning laws are not generally applicable nor are neutral as they only apply to religious organizations. They are creating a difference between secular and religious assembly which should be treated equally based on the facts of this case and the compelling interest in which the city claims. As well, the zoning laws substantially burden Anchor Stones Free Exercise of religion as now they are unable to congregate all together on Sunday which is an ideal of the Christian religion. While the monetary losses the church faced are indirect burdens of the zoning laws, it also prevents them from purchasing other land in which they could open a church to ensure the practice of their religion. I also question the motives of the zoning laws in Santa Ana. The city originally assured Anchor Stones that they would be eligible for a CUP, but after purchase, the city denied their permit. This fact could imply that the zoning laws were changed after Anchor Stone met with the city originally, possibly indicating the city’s motive was to directly burden the Free Exercise of Anchor Stone.
This case could have underlying similarities to the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc v. City of Hialeah. When the city of Hialeah heard that the Church of Lukumi Babalu wanted to establish a church, they quicky passed ordinances to inhibit their practice of Santeria which involved animal sacrifices. The court sided with the church as they rationalized that the ordinances were passed to target the religion. This set a precedent that a law created to suppress religious expression is not neutral and violates the Free Exercise clause. This could relate to the case of Anchor Stones, as the changes in zoning could have been motivated by news that the church wanted to open as the city originally gave them reassurance. While the zoning law may seem facially neutral, since the law potentially was directed at this group, the law would be unconstitutional based on the precedent of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc v. City of Hialeah.
If this case rules in favor of the church, there are huge implications on the state governments as RLUIPA would apply to the states, not just to the federal government. This would mean that every state would have to adjust their zoning laws to comply with the ideals expressed in this act. Churches would have greater freedom in choosing property and where would be an ideal place for expressing their free exercise.
https://readlion.com/asian-american-church-sues-california-city-for-violating-its-religious-freedom/
https://firstliberty.org/cases/anchor-stone-chinese-and-taiwanese-american-church/
https://www.justice.gov/crt/case/anchor-stone-christian-cd-cal
7 comments:
I agree with your analysis and conclusion, it seems that the city government sought to do nothing more than infringe upon their religious liberty. Their argument that a church would increase traffic is obviously valid, but what leverage does traffic increases give them to deny the church? If they were to fairly implement this standard no buildings would be built in the name of keeping the streets nice and clear!
I agree, with your argument, as it does not seem as though Santa Ana's zoning laws are generally applicable or neutral. If secular establishments like office buildings, restaurants, or art galleries can “assemble” without a CUP, but a church cannot, this creates a clear disparity in treatment. Additionally, the government is prohibited from placing a land use regulation that imposes a “substantial burden” on the religious exercise of a person or institution-- unless there is a "compelling interest" and uses the least restrictive means. Clearly, Anchor Stone being unable to gather in one place for worship—a vital part of their practice—should qualify as a substantial burden.
I agree. Santa Ana’s denial of Anchor Stone’s CUP seems discriminatory and infringes on the church’s Free Exercise rights. The city’s inconsistent zoning enforcement, favoring secular assemblies over religious ones, indicates a lack of neutrality. Promises made before the purchase and the subsequent denial suggest targeted action. Similar to the Lukumi Babalu case, such laws cannot endure when used to suppress religious practice. RLUIPA should apply to state zoning laws to protect religious freedom.
I agree with your argument, as there is little to no compelling state interest in this case that would outweigh Anchor Stone's free exercise rights. Similar to what Aidan said there is a huge concern that Santa Ana is refusing to approach religion and secular activities with a neutral perspective. In this case the city is not even attempting at facial neutrality. They are simply denying a religious organization and making excuses for their compelling interest. If the Anchor Stone Church is paying for the land they should be able to do as they please on the grounds as long as "peace and good order" is kept.
I agree with your argument because the justification behind denying the church its opportunity does not reflect a valid reasoning as to why it should not be allowed to operate. If the issue were determined based on consistent religious precedent then the argument would be more permissible. However, in this case the argument for why it is not allowed is not legitimate.
This case was super interesting to me, and I especially enjoyed the comparison to Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I agree that if Santa Ana denied the permit after initially assuring the church they’d qualify, its problematic - especially if the CUP process isn’t being applied consistently across religious and secular groups. If the city is using vague planning documents to selectively exclude religious organizations, then it’s hard to argue the policy is neutral or generally applicable under Smith, let alone under RLUIPA’s more protective standards.
What I keep coming back to is the claim that churches uniquely increase traffic or pose a safety issue. That feels like a weak argument to me, when similar “assemblies” like art galleries or restaurants are treated differently. If the city really believed that congregational traffic justifies a CUP, then why isn’t that burden placed equally on all high-traffic uses?
That said, I do wonder - if courts rule that religious institutions must be treated exactly the same as secular assemblies under all zoning rules, does that open the door to broader deregulation that could have unintended effects? Could it weaken cities’ ability to regulate land use across the board? I don’t think that outweighs the Free Exercise concerns here, but I do think it’s a question worth thinking about.
I also agree with your argument that the city of Santa Ana is burdening Anchor Stone’s Free Exercise rights and is, therefore, violating the Free Exercise Clause. In denying Anchor Stone the right to use the land while allowing secular businesses to use it, the city is directly discriminating against them. In arguing that Anchor Stones' operation would result in traffic issues, the Court, in my opinion, made it evident that they have no legitimate reason to deny them the ability to use land. If they genuinely believed that there would be traffic issues, then all businesses would be forced to close.
Post a Comment