1025 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
202.857.9766

Representative Matters

2017 AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA V. JACKSON TOWNSHIP, N.J. AL MADANY ISLAMIC CENTER OF NORWALK, INC. V. CITY OF NORWALK, CONN. ALBANIAN ASSOCIATED FUND V. TOWNSHIP OF WAYNE, N.J. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE V. PRISON FELLOWSHIP MINISTRIES BENSALEM MASJID V. BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, PA BERKOWITZ V. EAST RAMAPO CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, N.Y. BETHEL WORLD OUTREACH MINISTRIES V. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD. BIKUR CHOLIM, INC. V. VILLAGE OF SUFFERN, N.Y. BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC., V. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. CHABAD JEWISH CENTER OF TOMS RIVER V. TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER, N.J. CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY CHAPEL WESLEYAN CHURCH V. TOWNSHIP OF HILLSBOROUGH CONAWAY V. DEANE CONGREGATION ARIEL RUSSIAN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE V. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD. CONGREGATION HEICHEL DOVID CONGREGATION KOLLEL, INC. V. TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL, N.J. CONGREGATION MISCHKNOIS LAVIER YAKOV V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE VILLAGE OF AIRMONT, N.Y. CONGREGATION RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF TARTIKOV V. VILLAGE OF POMONA, N.Y. COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA V. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF TOWNSHIP OF CEDAR GROVE, N.J. DAYALBAGH RADHASOAMI SATSANG ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA V. TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE, N.J. EAGLE COVE CAMP & CONFERENCE CENTER V. TOWN OF WOODBORO, WISC. FAITH TEMPLE CHURCH V. TOWN OF BRIGHTON, N.Y. FIRST PENTECOSTAL UNITED HOLY CHURCH V. CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA FISHERMEN OF MEN CHURCH, APPLICATION OF, D.C. GREAT LAKES SOCIETY V. GEORGETOWN TOWNSHIP, MICH. GREENWICH REFORM SYNAGOGUE V. TOWN OF GREENWICH, CONN. GURU GOBIND SINGH SIKH CENTER V. TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, N.Y. HARBOR MISSIONARY CHURCH V. CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, CAL. HINDU TEMPLE AND CULTURAL SOCIETY OF USA V. BRIDGEWATER TOWNSHIP, N.J. HUNT VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH V. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD. HUNT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH V. BALTIMORE COUNTY JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER MINISTRIES V. BALTIMORE COUNTY KELLEY, THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THE GOVERNING BODY COMMISSION V. GARUDA MOXLEY V. TOWN OF WALKERSVILLE, MD. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR AMISH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM NAVAJO NATION V. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NEW BEGINNINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP V. TOWNSHIP OF BRICK PARAMESWARAN V. MYSOREKAR RIVERDALE BAPTIST CHURCH V. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD. ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHRISTIAN CHURCH V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY SAHANSRA V. WESTCHESTER COUNTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE V. COUNTY OF MAUI ST. JOHN UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST V. INDIANAPOLIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, IND. ST. JOHN´S UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST V. CITY OF CHICAGO THAI MEDITATION ASSOCIATION OF ALABAMA V. CITY OF MOBILE PLANNING COMMISSION THIRD CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD TROTMAN V. BEN GILMAN SPRING VALLEY MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLINIC VALLEY CHABAD V. BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE, N.J. YESHIVA GEDOLA NA'OS YAAKOV V. OCEAN TWP., N.J.

Hunt Valley Baptist Church v. Baltimore County, Md.

10/17/2017: Hunt Valley Baptist Church receives favorable decision in suit against Baltimore County

In Hunt Valley Baptist Church, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, (D MD, Oct. 17, 2017), a Maryland federal district court held that a Baptist church can proceed with challenges under RLUIPA as well as with Free Exercise and Equal Protection challenges to the county's refusal to grant it a special exception under its zoning laws to allow construction of a place of worship and related facilities.

"Church Can Move Ahead With RLUIPA Challenges To Zoning Refusal," Catholic News Live (Oct. 19, 2017)

The court held that the Church could have a reasonable expectation in obtaining a special exception to build a place of worship

In my view, the Church has stated a substantial burden claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1) because it has plausibly alleged that it had a reasonable expectation that it could build a house of worship on the Property if it satisfied the conditions. Moreover, the Church alleges that it complied with all of the objective standards under BCZR § 502 .1 for the grant of a special exception. And, as demonstrated by the administrative record, the ALJ and one Board member agreed that the Church met all nine requirements, at least as to the portion pertaining to the construction of the structure.

Hunt Valley Baptist Church v. Baltimore County, Civ. No. 17-804 (Oct. 17, 2017)

03/24/2017: S&A client Hunt Valley Baptist Church files suit against Baltimore County after denial of special exception

“Equal treatment of all religious institutions is a cornerstone of our constitutional traditions,” said Roman P. Storzer, attorney for the church, in the release. “We are confident that the protections of religious exercise that exist under federal and state law will allow Hunt Valley Baptist Church to minister to its members and the community at large in the manner that they believe is necessary.”

B. Zumer, "Hunt Valley Baptist Church sues Baltimore County after expansion denial," Fox45 News (Mar. 24, 2017)

Baltimore County is facing two federal lawsuits, one from a synagogue, the other from a church, on the grounds that their religious rights are being violated.

A. Burnett, "Religious Litigation Arises in Baltimore County," WJZ (Apr. 13, 2017)

A church and a synagogue find themselves in a battle against Baltimore County, with the congregations raising allegations of religious discrimination. Two lawsuits have been filed in federal court. One has to do with the expansion of the Hunt Valley Baptist Church and the other, a Russian community synagogue trying to move into Pikesville. Both have sued Baltimore County and the Board of Appeals of Baltimore County, claiming this is about a violation of their civil rights.

D. Weiner, "Church, synagogue suing Baltimore County over religious discrimination," WBAL TV11 (Apr. 14, 2017)