New Life Evangelistic Center v. St. Louis
“The poor man and the creditor have met one another. The Lord is the enlightener of them both.”
Proverbs 29:13
[dropcap style=”normal or inverse or boxed”]S[/dropcap]t. Louis has been at the center of justice issues in the United States since Augusrt 9, 2014 – the shooting of 18 year old Michael Brown. The conversation surrounding police brutality rocketed to the forefront of the discussion within St. Louis and Wash U; but there’s another judicial issue that may have slipped through the cracks.
New Life Evangelistic Center has been serving the St. Louis homeless population since 1972. Under the leadership of Reverend Larry Rice, this center has grown to accomadate the needs, focusing on shelter, of up to 300 people at any moment in time in its St. Louis headquarters – other branches are located throughout the Midwest, Africa, and India. Given the Center’s religious affiliation, they enroll these guests in either month-long or year-long programs with the hopes of helping them to find employment as well as helping them to embrace the Lord.
Sounds like a nice cause right? Well, what happens when an investor pours funds into redeveloping the area surrounding New Life Evangelistic Center? Tenants in the condominiums nearby complained of the incessant soliciting and public urination that was taking place as they were walking around their new homes. They filed a petition to the city and claimed New Life to be a nuisance. The city agreed. Now typically the city would have the power to shut the Center down, but after heavy negotiations, the city has issued this ultimatum: reduce their hotel charter to 30 people or close their doors by May 8th 2015 (Yes, a homeless shelter must have a hotel charter).
So now, New Life has taken the case to federal court arguing that the city is infringing upon their religious freedom. Professor John Inazu in the Law School at Washington University in St. Louis believes that New Life’s argument is more statutory than constitutional. It’d be tough to show how the city’s proclamation is against the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, but New Life may have a much better chance in showing St. Louis to be out of line with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (RLUIPA).
This act has commonly focused on the latter part of the Act’s name: institutionalized persons. In Holt v. Hobbs, the Supreme Court decided this year that an Arkansas prison statute banning ½ inch beards for religious reasons was in clear violation of the RLUIPA. However, the Court has yet to speak upon the religious land use aspect. The issue has arisen in the lower federal courts (where New Life’s case currently resides), and many of the cases involve cities attempting to ban a mosque from being built (which the courts have consistently said was in violation of the Act). However, given that New Life Evangelistic Center isn’t facing challenges in trying to build their property, will the federal courts look as favorable upon them? In U.S. v. Metro Gov. of Nashville, the federal district court found in 2009 that Nashville, TN was in violation of the RLUIPA when it denied a building permit and changed its zoning requirements that prevented Teen Challenge from using the property. Teen Challenge is a Christian substance abuse treatment program, but once again, the case involves a building permit.
This case is going to rely on the judge’s interpretation of the language of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. This law says,
[su_quote]No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of an [institution], unless the government demonstrates imposition of that burden on the [institution] is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest… [/su_quote]
It seems clear that St. Louis has placed a “substantial burden” upon New Life in restricting them to only care for 10% of their clients. However, it could also be argued that redeveloping broken parts of the city is very much a compelling interest for the city and New Life serving as a watering hole for the homeless greatly hinders that interest. Unfortunately, the judge cannot determine if providing a place for those in need to go is a more important interest for the city and factor that into the decision. St. Louis has the power to determine which interests are most important to its own well-being. It’s just unfortunate that those interests have to be in conflict with the one place caring for those not topping the city’s interest list.