Marianist Province of the U.S. v. City of Kirkwood, No. 18-3076 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Vianney appealed the district court's summary judgment rulings on their Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claims, Missouri Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Missouri RFRA) claim; and inverse condemnation claim under Missouri's Constitution.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed as to the RLUIPA claims, holding that the city's lighting and sound regulations did not substantially burden, rather than merely inconvenienced, Vianney's religious exercise. In this case, Vianney has not demonstrated that a requirement that it avail itself of alternatives would substantially burden its religious exercise, and the record demonstrated that Vianney was not treated less favorably than other schools. The court also affirmed as to the inverse condemnation claim, holding that Missouri courts have held that the reasonable exercise of a city's police power does not constitute a taking and the regulations here did not impose unusually restrictive limitations. However, the court vacated as to the Missouri RFRA claim, because the district court abused its discretion in deciding this state law claim on the merits after granting the city summary judgment on the RLUIPA claims. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the claim without prejudice.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. In school's challenge to city's zoning regulations in connection with the school's lighting of its outdoor baseball diamond, the district court did not err in determining that the regulations concerning lighting and sound systems did not substantially burden the school's religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA; the school's inability to use its baseball field at night is a mere inconvenience and not a substantial burden because there are alternative times and locations available to it; school's "as-applied" claim that the school was not treated on equal terms with the city's public high school rejected because the city's high school's football lights and sound system were already in place at the time the zoning regulations were passed in 2012; due to the dearth of case law interpreting Missouri's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the district court abused its discretion in deciding this state law claim on the merits after granting the city summary judgment on the school's RLUIPA claims; the court should have declined jurisdiction over this pendent state law claim and the matter is remanded with directions to dismiss this claim without prejudice; inverse condemnation claim was properly dismissed as the zoning regulations were a reasonable exercise of the city's police power and did not constitute a taking or impose unusually restrictive limitations.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.