Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield v. City of Springfield

• Decision Date: 22 July 2013
• Docket Number: No. 11–1117.,11–1117.
• Citation: 724 F.3d 78
• Parties: ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SPRINGFIELD, a Corporation Sole, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD; Domenic J. Sarno, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Springfield; Springfield City Council; Patrick J. Markey, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; William T. Foley, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Rosemarie Mazza–Moriarty, in her official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Timothy J. Rooke, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Bruce W. Stebbins, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Jose Tosado, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Kateri Walsh, in her official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Bud L. Williams, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; James J. Ferrera, III, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield, Defendants, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

724 F.3d 78

ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SPRINGFIELD, a CorporationSole, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.CITY OF SPRINGFIELD; Domenic J. Sarno, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Springfield; Springfield City Council; Patrick J. Markey, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; William T. Foley, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Rosemarie Mazza–Moriarty, in her official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Timothy J. Rooke, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Bruce W. Stebbins, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Jose Tosado, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Kateri Walsh, in her official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; Bud L. Williams, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield; James J. Ferrera, III, in his official capacity as City Councilor for the City of Springfield, Defendants, Appellees.

No. 11–1117.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

July 22, 2013.

Recognized as Unconstitutional

42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000bb–1 to 2000bb–4JohnJ. Egan, with whom Stephen E. Spelman and Egan, Flanagan and Cohen, P.C. were on brief, for appellant.

Anthony I. Wilson, Associate City Solicitor, City of Springfield, with whom Edward M. Pikula, City Solicitor, City of Springfield, was on brief, for appellee.

Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, SELYA and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

LYNCH, Chief Judge.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield (RCB) challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City of Springfield(City) and dismissal of RCB's constitutional and statutory claims against enforcement of a City ordinance that created a single-parcel historic district encompassing a church owned by RCB.Under the ordinance, RCB cannot make any changes that affect the exterior of the church, including demolition, without the permission of the Springfield Historical Commission(SHC).

RCB claims that the ordinance gives the SHC veto power over its religious decisionmaking, and in doing so violates its First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion; its rights under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.; and its rights under the Massachusetts state constitution.The district court, on cross-motions for summary judgment, found that some of RCB's claims were not ripe for review and that its remaining claims failed as a matter of law.SeeRoman Catholic Bishop of Springfield v. City of Springfield (RCB),760 F.Supp.2d 172(D.Mass.2011).

We conclude that only a limited claim is now ripe: namely, RCB's claim based on the mere enactment of the ordinance.But those of RCB's claims which depend on the potential consequences of compliance with the ordinance are not ripe for adjudication, because RCB has not yet devised its plans for the church nor submitted any application to the SHC.We reach this conclusion for reasons different from the district court's.We reject the remaining ripe claim.We affirm in part and vacate in part the district court's grant of summary judgment and dismiss RCB's unripe claims without prejudice.

I.

The facts in this case are undisputed.

A.Background

RCB is a corporation sole,¹ incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts.It is the legal entity through which the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield (“Diocese”) operates.The Diocese covers four counties in western Massachusetts, including the county that contains the City of Springfield.

RCB owns a church in Springfield known as Our Lady of Hope (“Church”), which was built in 1925.It was designed by the Springfield architect John Donohue in the Italian Renaissance style.In 2001, the Church was deemed eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, but it was never so placed.And until the events at issue in this case, it was never included in nor proposed to be included in a local historic district.

In 2004, RCB began a process known as “pastoral planning,” which was designed to determine how to allocate the Diocese's financial and human resources in the face of decreasing numbers of clergy and parishioners.The process was overseen by a committee of clergy and religious and lay members of the Diocese.Part of the committee's duty was to seek and incorporate the views of members of the Diocese outside the committee itself.In August 2009, the committee issued its final report.The report recommended closing the Church and combining Our Lady of Hope Parish with another local parish.The Bishop of the Diocese accepted this recommendation, and services ceased at the Church as of January 1, 2010.

According to Roman Catholic canon law, when a church goes out of service for religious worship, the Bishop comes under an obligation to protect the religious ornamentation in and on the building so that it is not put to “sordid” use.²RCB identifies eight types of religious ornamentation on the exterior of the Church, including stone castings, inscriptions, and stained glass windows depicting religious scenes and symbols.Some of these features, such as friezes, are built into the structure and are not easily removable.All of these features are designed to communicate religious messages to those who observe them.

RCB has established procedures for dealing with religious symbols when a church has been closed for worship.In order of preference, it will try to: (1) relocate the items to other locations within the Diocese; (2) relocate the items to other dioceses; or (3) place the items in storage.If none of these options are possible, the objects can be destroyed.

When a closed church is sold or leased to a third party, RCB must first convert the church from religious use to “profane”(non-sacred) use in a process known as deconsecration.As part of the deconsecration process, RCB will include a clause in the sale or lease agreement obligating the purchaser or lessee either to refrain from putting the property to “sordid” use or to allow RCB to remove all religious symbols.If RCB elects to remove the religious symbols, it follows the steps outlined above.However, if the symbols are impossible or impracticable to remove (for instance, a frieze), RCB will cover them with concrete or other materials.Symbols that cannot be removed may also be destroyed—along with the building itself, if necessary—if RCB determines that destruction is necessary to avoid desecration.

B.The Massachusetts Historic Districts Act (MHDA)

The MHDA delegates to cities and towns in Massachusetts the authority to designate historic districts within their boundaries.The process of creating historic districts involves first creating a historical commission or a historic district study committee, seeMass. Gen. Lawsch. 40C, §§ 3–4; Springfield did the former when it constituted the SHC in the early 1970s.The SHC consists of seven members and four alternates, appointed by the mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council.

Under the MHDA, a municipality's historical commission must investigate and report on proposed historic districts before such districts can be approved by the municipality.Id.§ 3.A proposed district “may consist of one or more parcels or lots of land, or one or more buildings or structures on one or more parcels or lots of land.”Id.In assessing potential historic districts, a commission is to consider “the historic and architectural value and significance of the site, building or structure, the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the features involved, and the relation of such features to similar features of buildings and structures in the surrounding area.”Id.§ 7.

When the commission completes a preliminary report on a proposed district, it transmits the report to the municipality's planning board and to the state historical commission.Id.§ 3.Not less than sixty days later, the municipal commission must hold a public hearing on the report.Id.If the commission approves the proposal following the public hearing, it transmits a final report and proposed ordinance to the city council (or equivalent body).Id.A two-thirds vote of the city council is required to approve the district.Id.

Once a historic district is approved, “no building or structure within [the] district shall be constructed or altered in any way that affects exterior architectural features” unless the historical commission first issues a certificate of appropriateness, a certificate of non-applicability, or a certificate of hardship.Id.§ 6.Violation of this provision is punishable by a fine of between ten dollars and five hundred dollars per day of violation.³Id.§ 13.The statute defines “altered” as “includ[ing] the words ‘rebuilt’, ‘reconstructed’, ‘restored’, ‘removed’ and ‘demolished,’ ” and the word “constructed” as “includ[ing] the words ‘built’, ‘erected’, ‘installed’, ‘enlarged’, and ‘moved.’ ”Id.§ 5.

In order to obtain a certificate of appropriateness, hardship, or non-applicability, a property owner must file with the commission an application along with “such plans, elevations, specifications, material and other information ... as may be reasonably deemed necessary by the commission to enable it to make a determination on the application.”⁴Id.§ 6.The SHC makes an application for these certificates, along with a list of its other requirements, available on the City's website.The SHC holds public hearings on submitted applications, unless all parties entitled to notice waive the hearing.

C.The Ordinance

The news that the pastoral planning process would result in the closing of the Church provoked significant adverse reaction among many Our Lady of Hope parishioners.The parish was one of the two largest parishes slated for closing in Springfield, and parishioners were unhappy with...