Ed FitzGerald03/23/08

PRESERVATION CASE BRIEF:The Rector, Wardens, and Members of the Vestry of St. Bartholomew’s Church v. City of New York and the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of New York , 914F.2D 348 (2nd Cir. 1990).

Facts

The Landmarks Commission denied an application for a certificate of appropriateness submitted by

St. Bartholomew’s Church on grounds that the proposed demolition of a supposedly unviable

auxiliary structure and replacement with a revenue-generating 47-story office tower would interfere

with the historic and aesthetic integrity of the landmark-designated property. Action was brought

against the Commission by the plaintiffs alleging that its application of New York City Landmark

Preservation Law had imposed an unconstitutional burden on free exercise of religion, limiting its

liturgical practices.

Issue

Whether Landmarks Law unconstitutionally denied equal protection, applying different standards of

hardship to charitable and commercial organizations, and whether the Commission’s application of

said law violated the Church’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by entangling

government in religious affairs through limiting the Church’s options to raise revenue for purposes of

expanding charitable activities central to its religious mission.

Holding

The Court determined Landmarks Law to be neutral and so, constitutional, and found that the

Commission’s application of said law did not interfere with the practice of religious beliefs and thus

violate the Church’s First Amendment rights.

Rationale

The Court grounded its decision on its finding that the Church had failed to prove by preponderance of

evidence that the Commission had prevented the Church from carrying out its religious and charitable

mission in its existing facilities and that deprivation of commercial value was reasonable as long as

the continued use for present activities remained viable. Landmarks Law was found to be neutral

regulation, generally applicable (e.g. zoning ordinances) to sacred and secular establishments alike,

and so did not deny the ability to practice religion or constitute coercion in the nature of those

practices affirming that “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to

comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability’” (quoting Stevens, J., U.S. v. Lee).