His Healing Hands Church v. Lansing Housing Commission

Citations: 233 F. Supp. 3d 590; 2017 WL 512698; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17599Docket: Case No. 1:15-CV-1059

Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan; February 7, 2017; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff His Healing Hands Church filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Lansing Housing Commission, claiming violations of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause by denying the Church's requests to use community rooms for Sunday meetings. The Housing Commission's refusal was based on its policy prohibiting the use of these rooms for religious purposes. Cross-motions for summary judgment were submitted, with a hearing on January 17, 2017. The court granted the Church's motion for summary judgment, denied the Housing Commission's motion, and issued a permanent injunction against enforcing the policy that barred the Church from using its facilities.

The Church's complaint was filed on October 14, 2015, alongside a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the court granted on February 1, 2016. The Housing Commission, a public authority providing subsidized housing, manages community rooms that are available for residents' private events and outside groups' activities that benefit residents, but it specifically prohibits religious worship or programs. Various outside groups have been allowed to use these rooms for activities such as youth programs and educational initiatives, provided they do not include religious content. Dr. Eleanor Kue, the Church's pastor and a medical doctor, conducts religious meetings on Sundays for Housing Commission residents while also operating a medical clinic during the week.

Meetings organized by the Church involve Biblical teachings on morality, worship, and community meals, aiming to empower families to break negative cycles. In late August and early September 2015, Dr. Kue sought permission from the managers of two Housing Commission-operated complexes to use their community rooms for Sunday services. One manager allowed the use of the room for feeding residents but prohibited any religious content, including mentioning Jesus or bringing Bibles. Subsequent communication confirmed that the Housing Commission does not permit the use of community rooms for religious activities, allowing access only for secular purposes that benefit residents.

The Housing Commission operates four public housing facilities, and the Church initially aimed to use the community rooms at the Hildebrandt and LaRoy Froh facilities. Following a preliminary injunction, the Church began using these rooms weekly and expanded its programs to other facilities for vacation Bible school events. Dr. Kue's first request to use the Hildebrandt community room was denied in March 2015 due to its religious nature, despite being told it could be used for feeding residents. The manager at that time, Rhonda Pagel, later denied having restricted mentioning Jesus or bringing Bibles, though she acknowledged the policy forbidding religious teachings in the community room.

A second request for the Hildebrandt room in late summer 2015 was also denied for being a "church service." Dr. Kue's meeting with LaRoy Froh’s manager resulted in a similar rejection. Following these denials, the Church adapted by purchasing a trailer equipped for outdoor services near the Hildebrandt and LaRoy Froh facilities.

The Church incurred expenses exceeding $10.00 for a trailer hitch and additional gas, and faced operational challenges due to cold weather preventing outdoor programs. The Housing Commission’s regulations allow secular groups to use community rooms for various educational and recreational purposes but prohibit all religious activities. Non-resident groups can present secular topics, while religious perspectives on similar subjects are not permitted. Rhonda Pagel, the facility manager, noted that secular groups can teach subjects like drug resistance without religious framing.

Regarding legal standards for summary judgment, it is appropriate when no genuine material fact dispute exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Material facts are defined by substantive law and necessary for legal application. The court must view evidence favorably towards the non-moving party but can grant summary judgment if no rational trier of fact could find for that party.

In a previous ruling, the Court determined that the Housing Commission’s community rooms do not qualify as traditional or designated public fora, as they are only available to groups hosting events benefiting residents. The Court found it unnecessary to classify the rooms as limited or nonpublic fora since restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. The Court identified that the Housing Commission's policy, which allows secular moral teachings while excluding religious perspectives, amounts to viewpoint discrimination, similar to the Supreme Court's findings in Good News Club v. Milford Central School. The inclusion of worship elements in the Church's programs did not alter this analysis, as the activities were deemed materially indistinguishable from those in Good News Club. Furthermore, the Housing Commission did not deny the Church access based on the nature of its meetings as worship, leading the Court to treat them as expressions of religious viewpoint rather than purely worship activities.

The Court finds that the motions and arguments presented by the parties reiterate previously addressed facts and reasoning in its preliminary injunction Opinion. It determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact that would prevent summary judgment. The Court states that the analysis remains guided by the precedent set in Good News Club, which identifies the Housing Commission's policy as impermissibly discriminatory based on viewpoint. 

The Housing Commission argues that its policy is viewpoint neutral since it excludes all religious groups from using community rooms for religious purposes. However, the Court counters that excluding any religious viewpoint, regardless of the number of religions excluded, constitutes viewpoint discrimination. The essential issue is whether the policy allows discussion of family issues from a religious perspective, which it does not. The Court references multiple precedents, confirming that regulations excluding religious discourse while allowing non-religious viewpoints violate the First Amendment.

Additionally, the Housing Commission's concern that permitting the Church to use the community rooms would necessitate allowing groups like the Ku Klux Klan is dismissed. The Court notes a lack of evidence for such requests and counters that excluding all members of a group due to potential offensive views is unconstitutional. 

Lastly, the Housing Commission argues that prior cases are distinguishable because its community rooms are private facilities. The Court rejects this argument, stating that the Housing Commission allows outside groups to use these rooms for discussions that benefit residents, similar to how public facilities operate in the referenced cases.

Exclusion of any group from community rooms based on religious viewpoints violates the Free Speech clause, even if these rooms are considered nonpublic fora. The Housing Commission's argument that nonresident children benefit from Church meetings is unsubstantiated, as Dr. Kue's affidavit indicates that their involvement provides valuable support to residents, and the Commission's rules allow guests at events. The Commission's assertion of a right to deny room use for any reason lacks backing from any written guidelines, rendering such discretion constitutionally problematic due to its potential for arbitrary application. The Church's additional claims regarding the Free Exercise Clause, Equal Protection, and Establishment Clause need not be addressed, as the violation of its free speech rights suffices for the case. The Church seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the Housing Commission from denying room access based on religious content, to ensure equal access for the Church as afforded to other groups, and to amend policies prohibiting religious programs. It also requests $10 in compensatory damages, asserting that constitutional violations cause irreparable harm justifying the need for an injunction.

The Court determined that the Housing Commission violated the Church’s First Amendment free speech rights. It emphasized the need for permanent injunctive relief to prevent the Commission from continuing its unconstitutional policy of viewpoint discrimination against religious organizations presenting programs on permissible topics. The Commission's request to exclude religious worship from permitted uses of community rooms was denied, as the Church's Sunday programs were not shown to be purely worship services, and no evidence indicated that the Commission had denied these requests based on worship status. The Court noted its inability to distinguish between religious worship and moral teaching from a religious perspective.

The Church was awarded $10.00 in compensatory damages, which the Commission did not dispute. The Court granted the Church’s motion for summary judgment regarding the free speech violation and denied the Housing Commission's motion. The Commission contested the Church's claim that the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts used the community rooms but failed to provide evidence against the Church's usage summary, which indicated 41 instances of such use. Regardless of current usage, the Commission admitted these groups would be allowed to use the rooms. The Court also noted that other groups, like the Champions Club, had utilized the rooms for character development, paralleling the Church's programming.

The Commission's argument about hearsay in Dr. Kue's affidavits was dismissed, as the Church relied on verified usage history and supporting documents. The Court rejected the Commission's distinction between worship and the Church's community-relevant programming, affirming that elements typically considered religious do not solely define a service as worship. The Housing Commission's reference to a previous case, Lavean v. Randall, was deemed inapplicable due to contextual differences regarding access to community spaces. Lastly, the Commission's suggestion that the Church could meet at its own property was irrelevant to the issue of viewpoint discrimination.