Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cnty., Inc. v. Borough of Litchfield

CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF LITCHFIELD COUNTY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOROUGH OF LITCHFIELD, CONNECTICUT, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-1419 (JCH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

NOVEMBER 1, 2017

BENCH TRIAL RULING

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Inc. ("the Chabad"), pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), title 42, sections 2000cc et seq of the United States Code. This action arises out of a denial of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness made by the Chabad to the Historic District Commission of the Borough of Litchfield (the "Commission"). The Chabad alleges that this denial substantially burdened its religious exercise, in violation of RLUIPA's "Substantial Burden" provision. The defendants, the Commission and the Borough of Litchfield, deny this allegation.

The court is painfully aware of the delicate role it must play in adjudicating a case where the plaintiff is a religious organization expressing the view that all of its proposed uses are religious exercise and that any facility smaller than the one proposed would substantially burden that religious exercise, and the defendants are governmental bodies seeking to preserve the historic character of their town. In some respects, this case presents the court with a circumstance akin to that faced by Odysseus when he traversed the narrow waters between Scylla and Charybdis, here freedom of religion on one side and non-establishment of religion on the other.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

The Chabad commenced this action to challenge the denial of its application for a certificate of appropriateness by the defendants, which was issued on December 20, 2007. In its initial Complaint, the Chabad asserted Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Freedom of Association claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; Due Process and Equal Protections claims under the Fourteenth Amendment; and Substantial Burden, Nondiscrimination, and Equal Terms claims under RLUIPA. The Chabad also alleged Civil Conspiracy under title 42, section 1985(3) of the United States Code; Failure to Prevent Violations and Civil Conspiracy under title 42, section 1986 of the United States Code; claims under the Connecticut State Constitution; and a Free Exercise claim under the Connecticut Religious Freedom Act, title 52, section 571b of the Connecticut General Statutes.

The original suit was brought by the Chabad and Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach, founder and current leader of the Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, against the Commission, the Town of Litchfield, several members of the Commission in their individual and official capacities, and several Doe defendants. By the Third Amended Complaint, however, the plaintiffs had dropped their claims against the Town of Litchfield and the Doe defendants.

This court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. See Chabad Lubavitch v. Borough of Litchfield, 796 F. Supp. 2d 333 (D.Conn. 2011). The Chabad appealed that judgment and the Second Circuit remanded the case,vacating the judgment with respect to two of the claims: the Substantial Burden claim and the Nondiscrimination claim. See Chabad Lubavitch v. Litchfield Historic Dist., 768 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014) (hereinafter Chabad App'l).

The Second Circuit dismissed all claims against one of the Commission members, Wendy Kuhne. See id. at note 1. The plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily withdrew all claims against the other two Commission members, Glenn Hillman and Kathleen Crawford. On the eve of trial, Rabbi Eisenbach voluntarily withdrew from the case as a plaintiff, following the court's Ruling on a Motion in Limine that evidence of damages was inadmissible. Because that Ruling eliminated all legal claims, the remaining plaintiff, the Chabad, had no right to a trial by jury. Therefore, by the time trial commenced, the case had evolved from a two-plaintiff, twelve-defendant, twelve-count action to an action by a single plaintiff against two defendants on one claim for injunctive relief: Substantial Burden under RLUIPA.

B. The Trial

This action was tried to the court over a three day period. The Chabad presented six witnesses:

1. Rabbi Schmuel Klatzkin, a rabbi with Chabad of Greater Dayton, who testified as an expert witness about the history of Chabad Lubavitch and its current practices.

2. Glenn Hillman, then-Clerk and now-Chair of the Commission, and co-author of the written opinion denying the Chabad's application for a certificate of appropriateness.

3. Judith Acerbi, one of the members of the Commission who denied the Chabad's application.

4. Peter Bugryn, an architect who worked with the Chabad, after the Commission's denial, to develop plans for the purposes of a special use permit to use the 85 West Street property as a place of worship.

5. Joseph Montebello, one of the members of the Commission who denied the Chabad's application.

6. Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach, the founder and leader of the Chabad, who testified as an expert about the Chabad Lubavitch movement and testified as a fact witness about his experience as the Chabad emissary in the Litchfield area, the needs of his Chabad community, and the application for a certificate of appropriateness.

After the Chabad rested, the defendants presented one witness, architect Wayne Garrick. Mr. Garrick presented an alternate plan for the Chabad's addition, which plan he was commissioned to develop by the Commission.

Over the course of the trial, the court admitted into evidence 31 exhibits, including photographs of the property, assessor cards of the 85 West Street property and nearby properties, the plans that were presented to the Commission and several alternate sets of plans, and video clips of the public hearings held on the Chabad's proposal.

At trial, the Chabad argued that all the uses of the proposed construction were religious exercise, at least in part, and that its proposal represented the minimum size necessary to accommodate its religious exercise. Furthermore, the Chabad argued that the Commission was disingenuous in articulating conditions under which a revised proposal would be accepted, and that the denial should therefore be interpreted as an absolute denial of any construction or modification of property at 85 West Street.

The defendants argued that the denial was not disingenuous, that several proposed uses—the rabbi's residence, the staff residence, and the indoor swimming pool—were not intended for religious exercise, and that, in any event, it would not be a substantial burden on the Chabad's religious exercise to locate the rabbi's residence and the staff residence in a nearby location. In short, the defendants argued that the denial was, at most, an inconvenience, not a substantial burden.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT¹

A. History of Chabad Lubavitch

Chabad Lubavitch is an Orthodox Jewish movement that dates back to the 18th century. Founded in Russia, Chabad's mission, then and now, is to revitalize the Orthodox Jewish community. Although followers of Chabad came to the United States as early as the 18th Century, Chabad as a movement came to the United States at the beginning of World War II when the then-leader of Chabad Lubavitch, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, emigrated to the United States and settled in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn.

Rabbi Schneersohn was succeeded in leadership of the Chabad movement by his son-in-law, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson ("Rabbi Schneerson"). Rabbi Schneerson is considered the last great leader of the Chabad movement. Many of the practices and principles of the Chabad movement today are rooted in the teachings and writings of Rabbi Schneerson.

Among his contributions to Chabad, Rabbi Schneerson spearheaded a practice of sending Chabad couples, known as emissaries, into areas where Orthodox Judaism was not already widely practiced. Chabad emissaries are located across the U.S. and around the world, from India to Cuba.

Rabbi Schneerson also taught that members of the Chabad community should infuse all elements of their lives with religiosity, in part as a way to attract more people to the faith. He encouraged followers to make "every house a Chabad House," meaning that the practices of daily living and the home environment should reflect and facilitate the teachings of Judaism. It is one of Rabbi Schneerson's core teachings that what God desires most is "a home which is distinguished by observance": "That [Judaism] is not just a hat you put on one day a week or an hour a day, but it's the nature of your whole life, especially where you live, that it is infused with Jewish values and ideas and practice." Tr. 1 at 40 (testimony of Rabbi Klatzkin).

In addition to the general idea that followers of Chabad Lubavitch should be observant within their homes, rabbi's homes are important places for sharing meals in the home. Being invited to a rabbi's home for Shabbat or a holiday meal has special significance within the Chabad faith.

Rabbi Schneerson also emphasized the importance of connecting children to the faith. To that end, Rabbi Schneerson spearheaded the development of "Gan Israel" summer camps, which are in large part recruiting tools for attracting young people who are unaffiliated with Orthodox Judaism. Secular activities at the camp draw in children and families who would not be interested in a purely religious camp, and thus facilitate recruitment.

Because one of the primary goals of the Chabad Lubavitch movement is to grow the faith, Rabbi Schneerson taught that Chabad followers should always do as much as they can for the faith, and should always be expanding their efforts. In other words, the view is: if you are able to build a Chabad House with ten rooms that is better than one with eight, but twelve rooms would be better. Chabad emissaries will never complete their work, but are...