CHICAGO — A federal judge won’t curb a lawsuit in which a small church alleges the city of Chicago violated federal religious freedom laws by limiting parking options.
Immanuel Baptist Church’s lawsuit alleges violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act — in that the city “imposes more demanding parking requirements on religious assembly uses” — as well as the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Founded in 1994, Immanuel Baptist has about 60 members, according to an opinion Judge Mary Rowland issued July 20. Since 2011, it has met in the 1400 block of West Roosevelt St. Although there is no on-site parking, the neighborhood has vacant lots and abundant street parking.
John Mauck
| Mauck & Baker
According to Rowland, the church leased the property for several years before moving to purchase, with a sale closing set for June 2016. Church leaders say an alderman and zoning plan examiner said there wouldn’t be issues on account of the pre-existing use, and even with a Bureau of Planning and Zoning letter indicating a permitted use, the lender required city confirmation the church could meet the city’s requirement of one parking space for each eight seats.
Unable to secure the mortgage despite several attempts to count off-street parking or acquire additional spaces, the congregation continued to pay monthly rent of $2,600, which jumped to $4,500 in 2017. In April 2018 the city approved the sale after the church inked a parking agreement with a park, and that September it closed the sale, but could only buy one building for $407,500 instead of the earlier agreed two buildings for $750,000.
In March 2019, the city parking ordinance changed, and that June the city granted Immanuel a 100 percent parking reduction, meaning it didn’t need to guarantee any off-street spaces.
The city asked Rowland to dismiss the complaint, saying the church didn’t prove it faced a substantial burden or allege bad faith or arbitrary action on the city’s part.
Although the law doesn’t define what makes a burden substantial, Rowland referenced a 2009 U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in World Outreach Conference Center v. City of Chicago and wrote, “the Seventh Circuit has noted that determining whether a burden is substantial ‘is ordinarily an issue of fact’ and that ‘substantiality is a relative term — whether a given burden is substantial depends on its magnitude in relation to the needs and resources of the religious organization in question.’ ”
Noting the small congregation, Rowland said the issue isn’t whether the parking rules made it nearly impossible for members to use their space and faulted the city for relying on older cases that used that elevated standard or were resolved at trial or through summary judgment.
“Although the city finally exempted the church from the parking requirement in 2019,” Rowland wrote, “that did not change the fact that the church had spent significant time, money and resources over those years, and lost the opportunity for ownership of one of the buildings. All of this was particularly difficult for the Church which has great needs and very limited resources.”
Further, Rowland said, “the RLUIPA protects ‘any exercise of religion,’ ” even if it isn’t central to the actual belief system, and the allegation of losing ownership of an entire building is significant. She also noted the church did allege the city’s burdens were imposed arbitrarily and capriciously, ultimately saying the remaining disputes are factual issues that shouldn’t be dismissed at this stage.
Rowland gave the city until Aug. 10 to file a response.
The church is represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of Mauck & Baker, of Chicago.
The city is defended by lawyers with its Department of Law.