His Healing Hands Church v. Lansing Hous. Comm'n

160 F.Supp.3d 1014

His Healing Hands Church, Plaintiff,

v.Lansing Housing Commission, Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-CV-1059

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed February 1, 2016

Timothy W. Denney, Rickard Denney Garno & Associates, Lapeer, MI, for Plaintiff.

Matthew Arthur Brauer, Rutledge Manion Rabaut Terry & Thomas PC, Detroit, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION

GORDON J. QUIST, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, His Healing Hands Church (the Church), is a Lansing church affiliated with the Assemblies of God. On Sundays, the Church holds religious meetings that serve residents of public housing developments operated by Defendant, the Lansing Housing Commission (the Housing Commission). The Church previously requested permission to conduct its Sunday religious meetings in the community rooms of two housing developments operated by the Housing Commission. The Housing Commission refused the request on the grounds that it does not allow use of the community rooms for religious activities. The Church filed a complaint asserting that the Housing Commission had violated its rights under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, and sought a preliminary injunction. Because the Housing Commission's refusal to allow groups to use its community rooms for religious purposes constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, the Court will grant the Church's motion and enter a preliminary injunction.

Background

The Housing Commission is a public housing authority that provides subsidized housing to qualified individuals and families. (Dkt. # 15-2 at Page ID# 489, ¶ 2.)

The Housing Commission operates several housing developments, each of which has a community room. (Id. at ¶ 3.) The Housing Commission controls access to the community rooms, and keeps them locked when they are not in use. (Id. ) The Housing Commission allows residents to use the rooms for private parties and other events, and the Housing Commission staff uses the community room to conduct meetings and put on events for residents. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) In addition, the Housing Commission allows outside groups to use the community rooms “so long as the purpose is to benefit the residents of the [Housing Commission] facility.” (Id. at ¶ 6.) The Housing Commission does not, however, allow outside groups to use the community room for “religious worship, services, or programs.” (Id. at ¶ 8.)

The Housing Commission has permitted outside groups to use its community rooms for a variety of activities aimed at benefitting residents. Outside groups have used the community rooms to provide activities for children, including Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts meetings, tutoring, and programs aimed at character-building and teaching of life principles. (Dkt. # 22-1.) For example, a Lansing church sponsors a program called “Powerhouse,” which uses the “Character First” program to teach character-building. (Dkt. # 21-1.) The program omits faith-based teachings and biblical references. (Id. ) Youth Haven sponsors a “Kids Klub,” which “focus[es] on teaching life principles and building the children's self-esteem through lessons, games, activities, and crafts.” (Dkt. # 20-1 at Page ID# 554.) Similarly, the “Champions Club” has used the community rooms to teach children to “say no to negative peer pressure, to make the right choices and change their community for the better.” (Dkt. # 20-1 at Page ID# 558.) Groups also use the community rooms to provide educational programs for adult residents related to health, financial literacy, and drug abuse prevention. (Dkt. # 15-2 at Page ID# 490-91, ¶ 7.) Finally, some groups use the community rooms to provide free food and diapers to residents. (Id. )

Dr. Eleanor Kue, a medical doctor, is the pastor of the Church. (Dkt. # 11-2 at Page ID# 305, ¶ 3.) During the week, Dr. Kue operates His Healing Medical Clinic, which provides medical services to an underserved community in Lansing. (Id. at ¶ 4.) On Sundays, Dr. Kue conducts “religious meetings,” that serve the Housing Commission's residents. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Those meetings consist of Biblical teaching, including teaching related to morality, religious worship, and the provision of a meal. (Dkt. # 11-2 at Page ID# 306, ¶ 10.) The Church focuses on teaching children and their families “empowerment through Christ to turn away from the negative community cycles that face them, and to turn...toward a lifestyle that contains promise and Hope for the future.” (Dkt. # 15-6 at Page ID# 513.)

In late August and early September 2015, Dr. Kue asked the managers of two different complexes operated by the Housing Commission if she could use their community rooms for the Church's Sunday religious meetings. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 9.) The manager for one complex told Dr. Kue that she could use the community room to feed residents, but that she could not “say anything about Jesus” or “bring any Bibles.” (Id. at ¶ 9.) A staff member at that complex later told Dr. Kue that the Church could not use the community room at all because it could not be used for religious activities. (Id. )

The managers of the housing complexes at issue have confirmed that they told Dr. Kue that “[the Housing Commission] does not grant access to the community room for religious purposes.” (Dkt. # 15-3 at Page ID# 496, ¶ 8; dkt. # 15-4 at Page ID# 499, ¶ 7.) The managers stated that Dr. Kue could use the community rooms “if the purpose of the access is for the secular benefit of the housing facility's residents,” but that “[the Housing Commission] does not allow access to its housing facilities' private community rooms for churches to conduct religious worship, services, or programs.” (Dkt. # 15-3 at Page ID # 496, ¶ 9; dkt. # 15-4 at Page ID# 500, ¶ 8.)

Following unsuccessful attempts to convince the Housing Commission to reconsider its decision, the Church filed this action. Shortly thereafter, the Church moved for a preliminary injunction.

Legal Standard

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” that is warranted only upon a clear showing that the movant is entitled to relief. Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20, 129 S.Ct. at 374.

“[W]hen First Amendment rights are implicated, the factors for granting a preliminary injunction essentially collapse into a determination of whether restrictions on First Amendment rights are justified to protect competing constitutional rights.” Cnty. Sec. Agency v. Ohio Dep't of Commerce , 296 F.3d 477, 485 (6th Cir.2002). “With regard to the factor of irreparable injury, for example, it is well-settled that ‘loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’ ” Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno , 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir.1998) (quoting Elrod v. Burns , 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 2690, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion)). Thus, “in the First Amendment context, the other factors are essentially encompassed by the analysis of the movant's likelihood of success on the merits.” Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp. , 698 F.3d 885, 890 (6th Cir.2012).

Discussion

The Church argues that its exclusion from the Housing Commission's community rooms violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech, free exercise, and establishment clauses. The Church further argues that such action violates its rights under the Equal Protection Clause. Because the Court concludes that the Housing Commission has violated the Church's First Amendment right to freedom of speech, it need not consider the Church's other arguments.

To determine whether a speech restriction on publicly-owned property is compatible with the First Amendment, courts consider: “(1) whether the speech is protected under the First Amendment; (2) what type of forum is at issue and, therefore, what constitutional standard applies; (3) whether the restriction on speech in question satisfies the constitutional standard for the forum.” Miller v. City of Cincinnati , 622 F.3d 524, 533 (6th Cir.2010).¹ The Housing Commission does not appear to dispute that the speech at issue falls within the First Amendment's protections. See Widmar v. Vincent , 454 U.S. 263, 269, 102 S.Ct. 269, 274, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981) ( “[R]eligious worship and discussion...are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment.”). Thus, the first issue the Court must determine is the type of forum involved.

1. Type of Forum

The Supreme Court has recognized three types of public fora: the traditional public forum, the designated public forum, and the limited public forum. See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum , 555 U.S. 460, 469–70, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1132, 172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009). A traditional public forum is one which by tradition or government mandate has “been devoted to assembly and debate, such as a street or park.” Kincaid v. Gibson , 236 F.3d 342, 348 (6th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The government creates a designated public forum when it opens a piece of public property to the public at large, treating as if it were a traditional public forum.” Miller , 622 F.3d at 534. Government restrictions based on the content of speech in traditional and designated public fora are subject to strict scrutiny analysis. Pleasant Grove , 555 U.S. at 469–70, 129 S.Ct. at 1132.

A limited public forum is distinct from a traditional or designated public forum. Miller , 622 F.3d at 535 n. 1. As the Sixth Circuit has explained, “a government entity may ‘create a forum that is limited to use by certain groups or dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects.’ ” Miller ...