O’Melveny & Myers lawyers have joined Plano-based First Liberty Institute on a federal lawsuit accusing the city of Santa Ana, California, of violating a Chinese- and Taiwanese-American Christian church’s religious liberty rights.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the Central District of California, accuses the city of violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, as well as the First Amendment.
Anchor Stone, a church that began in the homes of first-generation Chinese- and Taiwanese-Americans, sought approval from the city before purchasing property for a church building to accommodate its growing congregation, lawyers said. Church leaders shared detailed plans with city officials who responded positively, said First Liberty Institute senior counsel Jeremy Dys.
A senior assistant city attorney for Santa Ana did not respond to The Texas Lawbook’s request for comment.
Following a positive meeting in July 2022, the church purchased a property for the price of about $1.6 million in August 2022 and applied for a conditional use permit to use the property for a church, according to the lawsuit.
But the city denied Anchor Stone’s conditional use permit application and asserted that the city’s land use policy, called the General Plan, prohibited “community assembly” on the property, according to the lawsuit. City officials had not mentioned the policy in its meetings with congregants prior to the purchase of land, the lawsuit says.
The term “community assembly” is not defined or used in the General Plan, the church contends, and the city’s claim is not supported because the applicable zoning ordinance allows for non-religious buildings such as museums, restaurants and daycare centers.
Anchor Stone tried appealing to three of the city’s governing bodies to no avail.
“During hearings in front of each of these bodies, City officials expressed indifference and open hostility to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); that federal law protects religious institutions from unduly burdensome local land use regulations and is binding on the City,” the lawsuit states.
One city council member, during one such meeting, said, “We keep seeing RLUIPA thrown at us as an excuse to circumvent our local laws …. I find it offensive because it asserts we are somehow opposed to religious freedom …. [E]very time i hear that thrown out there, that’s a smack in our face,” according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges the city has historically discriminated against religious institutions, particularly when it comes to land use.
The city was forced to settle a “strikingly similar” case in 2023, according to the lawsuit. In the case titled Micah’s Way v. the City of Santa Ana, a faith-based nonprofit organization that feeds homeless people alleged the city imposed a substantial burden on its religious exercise and denied its occupancy certificate. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case, arguing that the city might have violated federal law when it denied Micah’s Way an occupancy certificate.
About the same time the Micah’s Way case concluded, Anchor Stone reached out to First Liberty Institute via a local lawyer who helped with the zoning process, Dys said.
Timothy S. Durst, a Dallas-based partner with O’Melveny who is working on the case pro bono, sent a letter to the city’s executive director of planning and building agency demanding the city immediately grant the application and arguing its denial is unlawful.
Because of Micah’s Way, the church’s lawyers thought the city “should know better” and figured Durst’s letter would persuade the city in their favor, Dys said.
Instead, a senior assistant city attorney replied, arguing the city was not in violation of the law and reiterating its stance that the church’s use was inconsistent with the General Plan.
“It is particularly shocking that the city seems to want to simply thumb their nose at the federal protections that are in place for religious organizations and houses of worship,” Dys said.
The church is seeking at least $575,000 for lost tithing revenue and expenses, as well as punitive and nominal damages, attorneys’ fees and the cost of the lawsuit.