▪ 9th Cir: Settlement of RLUIPA Claim Can't Override State Law

Los Angeles entered into settlement agreement with a religious organization to settle a RLUIPA claim.  The city agreed as part of that settlement to issue a conditional use permit (CUP) to the congregation.  Neighbors complained that city could not agree in settlement agreement to override CUP process, which would have provided the neighbors notice and hearing under state law. 

The Ninth Circuit agreed, voiding the settlement agreement unless there had been a specific finding that federal law was violated.  Settlement of lawsuits does not give local governments a "blank check" to ignore or avoid the rights of their residents:

Municipalities may not waive or consent to a violation of their zoning laws, which are enacted for the benefit of the public. See Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 907 P.2d 1324, 1343 (Cal. 1996); Trancas [Property Owners Ass’n v. City of Malibu], 138 Cal. App. 4th [172], 181-82 [(2006)]; see also Cal. Civ. Code § 3513. Any such agreement to circumvent applicable zoning laws is invalid and unenforceable. See Smith v. City of San Francisco, 225 Cal. App. 3d 38, 55 (1990).

Slip op. at 10187.  The court held that local law might be avoided if there was a specific finding by the federal court that federal law had been violated, but there had been no such finding in this case. 

Here, the district court held that a potential violation of federal law allowed a settlement agreement authorizing the City to disregard its zoning regulations. This was incorrect. Before approving any settlement agreement that authorizes a state or municipal entity to disregard its own statutes in the name of federal law, a district court must find that there has been or will be an actual violation of that federal law.

Slip op. at 10193-94 (emphasis original).  Indeed, the settlement agreement stated that the city denied violating any laws.

The League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates v. City of Los Angeles, No. 06-56211 (Aug. 21, 2007).

The LA Times report on the case is posted here.  Professor Patty Salkin's take on the case here at her Law of the Land blog. 

For a complete discussion of the use of federal consent decrees in settling land use disputes, see David L. Callies, The Use of Consent Decrees in Settling Land Use and Environmental Disputes, 21 Stetson L. Rev. 871 (1992).

Update 10/22/2007 - the Congregation has filed a petition for rehearing/en banc with the Ninth Circuit.