A long-running legal dispute between the city of Mobile and the operators of a Buddhist meditation center is headed back to federal court after a panel of appellate judges vacated key portions of an earlier ruling that had gone against the group.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, in a decision handed down this week, found that a federal district judge misapplied several legal standards when he rejected most of the claims brought by Lar Nimityongskul and the Meditation Center of Alabama against the city over a rezoning request that was denied following pushback from neighbors.
The center currently operates out of a strip mall location on Airport Boulevard. Seeking a quieter, more spacious setting for meditation classes, retreats and visits from Buddhist monks, Nimityongskul purchased a roughly 5,000-square-foot home on nearly seven acres along Eloong Drive, near Dog River, with plans to convert the property into a dedicated meditation facility.
The proposal called for zoning changes that would have allowed construction of a small cottage to house visiting monks, a meditation hall, restroom facilities and additional parking. Neighboring residents objected strongly to the plan, and after a wave of public opposition, both the Mobile Planning Commission and the Mobile City Council voted to deny the necessary zoning applications.
In response, the meditation center and its incorporators filed a federal lawsuit accusing the city of violating the Free Exercise and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Alabama Constitution and various state common-law protections. Following a bench trial held last year, the presiding federal judge ruled against the plaintiffs on nearly every count.
On appeal, attorneys for the meditation center argued the trial judge misread the standard for what counts as a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under federal land use law. The appellate panel agreed, finding that the center’s activities do constitute religious exercise and that the city’s zoning denial could plausibly impose a substantial burden on that exercise, even without proof that members were forced to abandon their faith entirely.
According to the ruling, the center argued that its current Airport Boulevard location suffers from traffic noise that interferes with meditation, lacks sufficient space for classes and lectures, and has no accommodations for monks staying overnight during retreats. The appeals court found that showing modified religious behavior resulting from government pressure can be enough to establish a substantial burden, without requiring proof that a congregation must completely surrender its beliefs.
Because the lower court’s rejection of the free exercise claim was tied directly to its flawed interpretation of the land use standard, the appellate panel vacated that ruling as well and returned both issues to the district court for further proceedings.
Not every argument from the meditation center succeeded on appeal. The panel upheld the lower court’s dismissal of claims that the city intentionally discriminated against the group based on religion. Although the appellate judges acknowledged that some neighbors made pointed remarks during a community meeting on the rezoning request, including one resident who objected on Christian religious grounds and another who argued the property should not host what he described as a “Buddhist temple,” the judges found no evidence tying those sentiments to the officials who actually voted on the applications.
The court noted that a statement from an attorney representing the Planning Commission, who suggested the meditation center did not qualify as a church, likewise could not be used to prove bias, since the comment did not come from a city decisionmaker. Judges also pointed to the center’s own marketing materials, which described its offerings as “non-religious,” as further undercutting the discrimination claim.
The panel did, however, revive a separate claim under Alabama’s Religious Freedom Amendment, ruling that the district court wrongly imported the “substantial burden” requirement from the federal land use statute into the state constitutional claim. The appellate judges found that the state provision contains no such requirement and remanded that portion of the case for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.
The case now returns to federal district court, where a judge will be asked to re-examine the substantial burden and free exercise claims, as well as the state constitutional claim, in light of the appellate panel’s findings. The zoning dispute, which has stretched on for several years, remains unresolved as litigation continues.