The Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church, located in Collier Township, Pennsylvania, proposed plans to create a new chapel on their 41-acre plot, which currently holds a cemetery, to expand their religious practices. The land was originally acquired by the church in the 1950s when Catholic refugees from Ukraine settled into the town to continue their customs and traditions. The church spent significant time and money on constructing their plans, even working with the director of planning, zoning, and development to create adjustments, who stated no objections at the time. The township’s planning commission rejected these plans and added restrictions for the church that do not apply to non-religious organizations. These restrictions include limited church bell ringing, who is allowed to have memorial services, and restricting the size and height of the proposed building.
Despite these rules and denial of development for the cemetery, secular organizations have not faced any restrictions and continue to advance their properties. To illustrate, there is a carpenters’ union a mile away from the cemetery, which contains event spaces, offices, classrooms, a cafeteria, and more. Zoning for secular uses also allows large projects such as fitness centers, ice rinks, and country clubs. All of these regulations are applied within the same zoning district, since both the cemetery and carpenters’ union are located near each other.
The church filed a federal lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction for the township in January 2026, meaning that they requested that the restrictions be stopped while the case takes place. The church claims that their religious freedom is being restricted with no compelling state interest, meaning that identified community concerns have not been shared, because they cannot use their own land to further their religious practices by building a new chapel. The pastor of the church, Father Jason Charron, stated, “We are a parish that seeks to worship freely and serve the needs of the community while being treated fairly and equally as all organizations in the Township” (First Liberty).
This case raises a concern under the free exercise clause because the church seeks to expand a space for religious exercises and prayers to be conducted, and the township is preventing it from doing so by enacting a law that only applies to non-secular organizations. The central constitutional question is whether these restrictions violate the church’s right to exercise religion freely, and whether the township can justify its actions by showing compelling state interest. It is not only about the township regulating land use, but also about whether they are allowed to do it in a way that limits religious practice without significant justification.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act states that no government can impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that creates a substantial burden on religious exercise. This Act is relevant here because the regulations imposed on the Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church’s ability to build a new chapel directly affect how the church continues its religious traditions. Restrictions on bell ringing and who qualifies to hold memorial services interfere with their established practices. This prevention supports the argument that the township’s restrictions substantially burden the church.
At the same time, it is important to consider the townships' reasoning. Local governments are responsible for concerns such as traffic and parking, public safety, water and sewer supplies, and the need for commercial space. These concerns could be qualified as compelling state interests because they relate to the general welfare of the community. Specific concerns that the township has for the developments are noise and traffic concerns. However, there is a contradiction in the way these concerns are applied. The carpenters’ union is developing within the same zoning district which even has an event space large enough for 400 people. Even after the church scaled down in size on its original development plans, proposals were also denied. This difference in treatment raises the issue of disparate treatment, showing that the church is unfairly under stricter limitations than non-religious organizations.
I perceive the township’s restrictions to violate the free exercise clause because they are imposing a substantial burden on the church’s ability to practice religion on its own property. While I understand the logistical concerns the town put forward about traffic and noise, it is difficult to justify because secular organizations are being approved for large developments in the same zoning district, which creates the same problems. This is an inconsistent application of development rules and supports the church's claim that they are being unfairly restricted in religious freedom.
This issue connects to other interpretations of free exercise, such as the Sherbert test and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, as stated earlier. Both emphasize that the government cannot significantly burden religion unless it demonstrates a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means possible. The township's actions fail this test because restrictions are disproportionately targeting religious organizations, with no compelling interest shown. Governments must apply regulations neutrally and consistently, especially in cases that directly affect the exercise of religious freedom.
3 comments:
After reading about the zoning restrictions being implemented in Collier Township, Pennsylvania I agree that they are not being applied fairly. In my view, the application of these limitations is clearly not neutral because secular organizations are able to build and develop their property without restriction while the Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church is being prohibited from making similar expansions. In addition to the policy not being neutral it is limiting the ability of the church to freely exercise their religion, which I believe violates the First Amendment.
I agree, as Collier Township’s (“Township”) unconstitutionally violates religious rights of Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church’s (“HTUCC”). The Sherbert test deems Township needs “compelling state interest” to restrict HTUCC from ringing church bells or building a larger chapel. However, neither concerns of traffic, nor noise, justify Township’s restrictions. First, Township’s secular organizations have large building capacities, showing traffic is manageable. Next, church bells are infrequent and relegated to Sundays. HTUCC is experiencing disparately unequal treatment.
I agree and think that this issue has a lot to do with the neutrality of the zoning laws. Even facially neutral zoning laws can not place substantial burdens on religious exercise without compelling state interest and a strong justification. The fact that secular organizations in the same district are allowed to make similar developments shows how the reasoning is inconsistent, and this disparity shows how the regulation is not being applied neutrally.
Post a Comment