| Almost a year ago I wrote an
article about a Jewish school that was facing religious discrimination
in their attempt to expand their facilities. I want to follow
up on the progress of their case, but first, this is what I
wrote in that article. I apologize for the recital, but it is
important to recall the details in order to understand the gravity
of what is going on.
“Westchester Day School is a Jewish school in
Mamaroneck, New York. WDS has been functioning as an elementary
and middle school on the same 26-acre site since 1948. Currently,
their student population numbers about 500 students.
WDS owns four buildings, two of which are an
estate house and a carriage house that were converted for use
as classroom buildings. The house was built in 1897, and the
carriage house was built in 1892. The third building, Wolfson
Hall, was constructed sometime in the 60’s. The fourth building,
Westchester Hebrew Hall, was built in 1979. …
… In 1998, WDS hired an architectural firm to
design Gordon Hall, a new classroom building. The building was
designed according to building codes and was in compliance with
the local zoning code.
In October of 2001, following legal procedure,
the school submitted their plans to the Mamaroneck Board of
Appeals for permission to begin their project. The Board of
Appeals discussed the project each month for the next four months,
and during that time determined that the project would not have
a negative impact on the neighborhood. However, neighbors of
the school had begun to voice their opposition to the project.
In February of 2002, the Board directed the
school to meet with their neighbors to try to resolve their
objections. The school sent invitations to a meeting to about
500 households, but only about 75 people attended the meeting.
The Board met again in March of 2002, but since
there was still some vocal opposition to the project by neighbors,
the Board adjourned their meeting without a decision.
In April, the Board chairman suggested that
the Board rescind their earlier decision that the school would
not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. In May, they
issued a list of things that the school would have to comply
with in order to eliminate the negative impact. The school complied
with the list.
In August, despite the fact that the school
had complied with their demands, the Board voted to rescind
their earlier decision and to deny the school’s application
to build their project.
A few days after the Board’s decision, the WDS
filed a lawsuit against the Village of Mamaroneck, claiming
that the Board’s earlier decision had not been properly rescinded.
In a decision in December of 2002, the judge agreed, and sent
the case back to the Board of Appeals to reconsider the case.
In January of 2003, the Board met to consider
the matter, but tabled it until the following month. The judge
then ordered the Board to issue a list of any items that would
prevent their approval of the school’s project. The school once
again complied with the Board’s list, but in May of 2003, the
Board once again denied the school’s application.
The school immediately filed another lawsuit,
this time stating the Board had violated the RLUIP Act.
In September of 2003, the judge found the case in favor of the
school …
… The judge then ordered the Board to issue an unconditional
permit to the school for their project.”
Since that order, here is what has happened to the case.
Instead of complying with the court order, the
Board appealed, “attacking RLUIPA’s constitutionality and denying
that it had imposed a substantial burden on the school”.
On January 20, 2004, the Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty filed a brief arguing that "the appropriate standard
for determining whether a burden is 'substantial' is to ask
whether government action puts pressure on a religious institution
to modify its religious behavior, or prevents it from engaging
in religious conduct, in a way that is greater than a mere inconvenience."
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated the previous court order to issue a permit to the school
in September of 2004, claiming there was not enough evidence
to make such an order. The judge remanded it back to the District
Court, saying that he was concerned that the reasoning that
the school’s plans to expand would be protected by RLUIPA was
flawed. In an ironic twist, he said that if a secular school
and the Jewish school both had planned similar expansions, he
was concerned that only the Jewish school would be protected
by RLUIPA (i.e, an unfair advantage would be held by the Jewish
school.)
With the continued and intensifying effort by
liberals to exclude Christianity from our society, I want churches
to stay informed about this issue. We could see many more serious
problems develop if RLUIPA is found to be unconstitutional.
|
