Spirit Temple v. Cnty. of Maui

• Decision Date: 22 September 2022
• Docket Number: s. 19-16839,20-15871
• Parties: SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, a Hawai‘i nonprofit corporation; Fredrick R. Honig, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF MAUI, Defendant-Appellee, State of Hawai‘i, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee, and Maui Planning Commission, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

49 F.4th 1180

SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, a Hawai‘i nonprofit corporation; Fredrick R. Honig, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. COUNTY OF MAUI, Defendant-Appellee,State of Hawai‘i, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee,andMaui Planning Commission, Defendant.

Nos. 19-16839

20-15871

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 2, 2021 Honolulu, Hawai‘i

Filed September 22, 2022

Roman P. Storzer (argued), Storzer & Associates P.C., Washington, D.C.; Jonathan S. Durrett and Adam G. Lang, Durrett Lang LLLP, Honolulu, Hawai‘i; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Brian A. Bilberry (argued) and Moana Lutey, Department of the Corporation Counsel, County of Maui, Wailuku, Hawai‘i, for Defendant-Appellee County of Maui.

Robert T. Nakatsuji (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Clare E. Connors, Attorney General; Department of the Attorney General, Honolulu, Hawai‘i; for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee State of Hawai‘i.

James A. Sonne, Stanford Law School Religious Liberty Clinic, Stanford, California, for Amicus Curiae The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Gordon D. Todd, Robin Wright Cleary, and Daniel J. Hay, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; Christopher Pagliarella, Yale Law School Free Exercise Clinic, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, and Chabad Lubavitch of Northwest Connecticut.

Before: Richard R. Clifton, Ryan D. Nelson, and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge R. Nelson ;

Concurrence by Judge Collins ;

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Clifton

R. NELSON, Circuit Judge:

The County of Maui Planning Commission denied the Spirit of Aloha Temple's application for a special use permit to hold religious services and other events on agriculturally zoned property. Plaintiffs brought facial and as-applied First Amendment prior restraint claims, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claims, and claims under the state and federal Free Exercise and Equal Protection clauses. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants because Plaintiffs bring a successful facial First Amendment challenge to the County's zoning scheme. We also vacate and remand for the district court to reevaluate costs and to reconsider Plaintiffs' religious liberties claims without giving preclusive effect to the Commission's decision.

I

In 1994 Fredrick Honig bought eleven acres located at 800 Haumana Road in Maui. The land is zoned for agricultural use, designated within the state agricultural and conservation district, and subject to environmental protections for coastal lands. Honig developed the land without permits. He cleared and graded the land, cut roads on the property, changed the contours of coastal conservation land, and altered the route of a natural watercourse. He appears to have built illegal structures, including housing structures, and installed cesspools near drinking water wells. Although several Hawaiian archeological sites existed on the property, including an agricultural terrace, burial crypt, and irrigation ditch, Honig failed to provide the requisite monitoring plans for their preservation. Through a nonprofit entity, Honig also used the property as a venue to conduct commercial weddings, vacation rentals, retreats, and events—all without the requisite permits. By late 2015, around 550 weddings were performed on the property.

Honig was repeatedly put on notice that these activities required appropriate permits but continued to violate land use regulations. In 2007 Honig formed a new nonprofit, Spirit of Aloha Temple, as "a branch of the Integral Yoga movement, a modern branch of the ancient Hindu yogic tradition."¹

That year Honig applied for a special use permit for a "church, church[-]operated bed and breakfast establishment, weddings, special events, day seminars, and helicopter landing pad." The County of Maui Planning Commission denied that permit, noting several buildings without proper permits; general problems with the helicopter pad's location; and potential adverse impacts to surrounding properties from loud music, helicopter noise, and increased traffic.

Honig and the Spirit of Aloha Temple ("Plaintiffs") worked with local agencies to address the Commission's concerns. The County Planning Department recommended that the Commission approve a second application with various conditions. In 2012 Plaintiffs filed their second application seeking to hold "weekly church service," "sacred programs, educational, inspirational, or spiritual including Hawaiian cultural events, and spiritual commitment ceremonies such as weddings," with limitations on the number of attendees.

The Commission denied the second application, and Plaintiffs moved to reconsider. Plaintiffs' attorneys sent a letter warning that a denial of the permit, absent a compelling government interest, would create concerns under RLUIPA. The Commission rescinded its initial denial, conducted a hearing, then again denied the second application. According to its "Finding of Fact #68,"

granting the Application would adversely affect the health and safety of residents who use the roadway, including endangering human life. The Commission finds that the health and safety of the residents' and public's use of Haumana Road is a compelling government interest and that there is no less restrictive means of ensuring the public's safety while granting the uses requested in the Application.

The Commission analyzed whether the requested land uses would be "unusual and reasonable" after considering the guidelines in Hawai‘i's Code of Rules § 15-15-95(c). It concluded that the proposed uses "would adversely affect the surrounding properties," because of safety concerns surrounding Haumana Road. It also determined that the proposed uses would increase traffic and burden public agencies by requiring them to provide roads, police, and fire protection. The Commission's "Conclusion of Law #9" specifically addressed Plaintiffs' RLUIPA concerns by explaining the strict scrutiny standard and finding that outright denying the permit was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling public health and safety interests.²

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal district court against the County. The complaint alleged violations of RLUIPA's substantial burdens, nondiscrimination, and equal terms provisions;³ the First Amendment's prohibition on prior restraints; state and federal Free Exercise and Equal Protection clauses; and the Hawai‘i Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages (which they waived before trial), attorneys' fees, and costs.

The district court "decline[d] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" over Plaintiffs' state claim challenging the Commission's decision. It stayed the remaining claims pending the state circuit court's determination of the state claim, essentially forcing Plaintiffs to adjudicate their APA claim in state court.

In state court, Plaintiffs appealed the permit denial, arguing that the Commission's factual findings were clear error. Plaintiffs challenged Finding of Fact #68 and Conclusion of Law #9 where the Commission found an increase in traffic and foreseeably dangerous road conditions. But they did not challenge the portion of Conclusion of Law #9 on strict scrutiny stating that RLUIPA had not been violated because the permit denial was the least restrictive means of furthering the Commission's compelling interest. And in state court, citing England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners , 375 U.S. 411, 84 S.Ct. 461, 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964), Plaintiffs reserved for federal adjudication all federal questions, including their First and Fourteenth Amendment and RLUIPA claims.

The state court affirmed the Commission's decision to deny the permit under the Hawai‘i APA, finding no "clear error in the ... Commission's factual findings or error in its legal conclusions" and that the denial was not "arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion." The state court also found a "more than sufficient basis for the Planning Commission's denial of the Special Use Permit," stating that "[t]he Commission had more than enough evidence to be concerned about traffic and road safety" considering the "[n]umerous individuals [who] expressed concern about traffic and road safety." Plaintiffs did not appeal the state court decision.

Upon return to federal court and after discovery, Plaintiffs filed for partial judgment, and the County sought summary judgment on all claims. The district court denied both motions. As to the First Amendment prior restraint claims, the parties stipulated to allow the State to intervene. Later, the district court granted summary judgment to the State and County on the prior restraint claims and held that the remaining claims presented only as-applied challenges.

The district court later granted summary judgment for the County on all remaining counts, except one, concluding that the Commission's decision on least restrictive means barred Plaintiffs' claims under collateral estoppel. Because RLUIPA's equal terms provision lacks strict scrutiny language, the district court held that collateral estoppel did not resolve that claim. See Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma , 651 F.3d 1163, 1171–72 (9th Cir. 2011) (unlike the substantial burden provision, RLUIPA's equal terms provision does not include key phrases like "compelling governmental interest" and "least restrictive means"). The claim went to trial, and the advisory jury found that neither side proved by a preponderance of the evidence whether the "Spirit of Aloha Temple is a religious assembly or institution." It also found that the County "proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, with respect to accepted zoning criteria, it did not treat Plaintiff Spirit of Aloha Temple on less than equal terms as compared to the way the County of Maui treated a similarly...