At the moment, PACER (a national index for U. S. District, bankruptcy, and appellate courts), says only "CASE argued". It could be a long time before a decision, but maybe not.
In the interim I thought it would be worthwhile to look through the reams of legal papers generated so far. The first one was of course the original complaint, dating from Feb. of 2010. In it, the bishop charged the City of Springfield with a long and grievous list of offenses against him, Timothy, bishop of Springfield.
Offenses against freedom of religion and freedom of speech lead the list, but there was plenty more including an astonishing one about how the city had violated the bishop's civil rights. I do believe that one was thrown out because the city is not a person and therefore cannot be charged with discrimination, but maybe not. What shines through in the language of the appeal is that Egan and Co. are going back to the original complaint with a vengeance. There is no indication whatsoever that they have ceded any ground, despite getting literally decimated by Judge Michael Ponsor on Jan. 2, 2011, when he found for the city on all ripe counts.
The case is ostensibly about whether Springfield has the right to declare a church a historic site and therefore worthy of preservation, but from the volume and vehemence of the church lawyers' briefs that simple fact is easy to lose sight of. For sure, this is one of the takeaways: the church does not like the state telling it what to do.
What also comes through time after time in the initial complaint is the amount of hatred that the bishop has for historic preservation. He simply does not believe that it has any value. Another item of note is how willing the bishop is, in several papers, to charge the city with bad faith; and yet, in its response, and throughout the case, the city never reciprocates and accuses the bishop of unfair dealing. Talk about turning the other cheek! The City deserves a gold star for that one.
The City Answer is the second document in the series and lists about 35 Affirmative Defenses. Some of these are quite interesting. I list some of them below and will likely comment on some of them next time around.
Till next time, intrepid court watchers! Keep the faith! Remember, this case is only in its 3rd year, 3rd month! We'll get there!
======================
THIRD DEFENSE: The City of Springfield
reserves the right to recover costs and attorney fees in the event
that the above action [the bishop's complaint] is found frivolous or
in bad faith.
FIFTH DEFENSE: The complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the
defendants because the Our Lady of Hope
Local Historic District ordinance does not
prevent the RCB from carrying out its
religious and charitable mission in its current
buildings.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted against the
defendants because the Our Lady of Hope
Local Historic District Ordinance and the
Historic Districts Act, G.L, ch. 40C,
§§ 1 et seq., are content-neutral laws of general
applicability which regulate conduct,
rather than speech, and they are therefore outside
the First Amendment.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
Even assuming that there is
communicative content in the exterior architectural features
of the Our Lady of Hope Historic
District that content was irrelevant to Springfield’s
reasons for creating the said Historic
District.
NINTH DEFENSE
Even assuming that there is activity
protected by the First Amendment at issue here, it is
not appropriate to evaluate the
constitutionality of Our Lady of Hope Local Historic
District Ordinance solely on its face,
or exclusively on the basis of its potential effect in
hypothetical cases.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
The defendants acted in good faith
reliance on legislative or statutory authority.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because the
constitutional rights to religious
freedom, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of
assembly, due process and equal
protection of the laws are individual rights which do not
protect artificial, state created,
entities such as a body politic and corporation sole.
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because the RCB is
subject to all the liabilities and
limitations imposed by the Public Statutes of the
Commonwealth including the Historic
Districts Act and the Our Lady of Hope Historic
District; the RCB’s power to receive,
take and hold real estate and to manage and dispose
of it for the religious and charitable
purposes of the Roman Catholic church is subject to
the laws of the Commonwealth including
the Historic Districts Act and the Our Lady of
Hope Historic District.
TWENTIETH DEFENSE
Based on information and belief, the
defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable in
light of the facts and circumstances
and existing law without regard to underlying intent
or motivation.
TWENTY FIRST DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because the Our
Lady of Hope Church was created using
the accumulated funds from numerous
individual contributions extending
through a long period of time. The RCB apparently
has discontinued all religious uses of
the Our Lady of Hope Church and it is not possible
to return those numerous contributions
to the original donors. Under the doctrine of cy
pres it becomes the court’s
responsibility to enforce the lawful objects of the
contributions most nearly corresponding
to those for which the funds were originally
destined. The Historic Districts Act
and the Our Lady of Hope Historic District
Ordinance operate to achieve that end
by preserving the exterior architectural features of
the Our Lady of Hope property in the
manner intended by the original donors of the funds
used to create it.
TWENTY FOURTH DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because the Our
Lady of Hope Historic District
Ordinance does not prevent members of the Roman
Catholic Church from pursuing their
religious beliefs, coerce them into abandoning or
violating those beliefs, or dissuade
members of the Roman Catholic Church from
practicing their faith.
TWENTY FIFTH DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because there is no
indication that the RCB is precluded
from fulfilling his religious mission through worship
as a whole, or through his various
other activities, in other locations throughout the city.
TWENTY EIGHTH DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because the Our
Lady of Hope Historic District
Ordinance does not totally exclude religious assemblies
within the meaning of the RLUIPA from
Springfield.
TWENTY NINTH DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because the Our
Lady of Hope Historic District
Ordinance does not unreasonably limit religious
assemblies, institutions, or structures
within the meaning of the RLUIPA.
THIRTIETH DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because the Our
Lady of Hope Historic District
Ordinance does not impose or implement a land use
regulation.
THIRTY FIRST DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because, even
assuming the Our Lady of Hope Historic
District Ordinance imposes or implements a
land use regulation, it does not do so
in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the
religious exercise of the RCB within
the meaning of the RLUIPA.
THIRTY SECOND DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because, even
assuming the Our Lady of Hope Historic
District Ordinance imposes or implements a
land use regulation in a manner that
imposes a substantial burden on the religious
exercise of the RCB within the meaning
of the RLUIPA, the Our Lady of Hope Historic
District Ordinance furthers a
compelling governmental interest by promoting the
educational, cultural, economic and
general welfare of the public through the
preservation and protection of the
distinctive characteristics of buildings and places
significant in the history of
Springfield or their architecture, and through the maintenance
and improvement of settings for such
buildings and places and the encouragement of
design compatible therewith and the Our
Lady of Hope Historic District Ordinance is the
least restrictive means of furthering
that compelling governmental interest.
THIRTY FOURTH DEFENSE
The Our Lady of Hope Historic District
Ordinance is presumed to be constitutional and
every rational presumption in favor of
its validity is to be made. The plaintiff bears a
heavy burden of demonstrating, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that there are no conceivable
grounds supporting the legislative
enactment.
Posts
