Revised complaint in lawsuit charging that Huntsville violated religious liberties

Oct 24, 2001

An amended complaint (PDF format, 122 K) has been filed in U.S. District Court in Temple B'nai Sholom v. City of Huntsville, a case in which the city is charged with violating the U.S. and Alabama constitutions and a year-old federal law designed to protect religious liberties in zoning and land use cases. The filing is the first to include as co-counsel The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm, which recently joined the case on behalf of Temple B'nai Sholom. The Huntsville law firm of Balch & Bingham continues as lead counsel in the lawsuit, which was initially filed on May 8, 2001.

The Becket Fund has successfully represented religious organizations throughout the United States in similar cases, and is nationally known for its expertise in both constitutional law and cases brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). The group has a special web site devoted exclusively to the statute (www.rluipa.com).

The amended complaint charges the city with multiple violations of RLUIPA and the state and federal constitutions because of the way it has handled the Temple's application to demolish a dilapidated house on property adjacent to its historic home at Lincoln and Clinton Avenues. Members of Temple B'nai Sholom have worshiped continuously in the historic temple since it was built in 1899, and completed an extensive renovation there several years ago. The Historic Huntsville Foundation awarded the congregation its "Historic Preservation Award" for the renovation.

The house at 406 Clinton Avenue has no historical significance, however, and fell into disrepair when the congregation could no longer find tenants willing to occupy and maintain it. On September 15, 2000, Huntsville Community Development Administrator Jerry Galloway ordered the Temple to "demolish or repair" the house. Since repairs would be extremely expensive, and the property is needed to accommodate expansion of the Temple's overcrowded and inadequate facilities, an application was made to demolish the building. But the city's Historic Preservation Commission refused to allow demolition, leaving the Temple in an impossible "Catch 22" situation, with one city agency prohibiting action that another city agency had ordered done. The city even tried to obtain a misdemeanor conviction against the Temple for not carrying out the "demolish or repair" order. A municipal court judge dismissed the city's action based in part on RLUIPA.

Relevant Cases

• Temple B'nai Sholom v. City of Huntsville