Background
Anash, Inc., doing business as Wyoming Valley Yeshiva, and Rabbi Shimon Hellinger used two properties in Kingston, Pennsylvania, for Orthodox Jewish religious activities. The property at 239 Pierce Street housed approximately ten boys and young men who studied and practiced their faith under Hellinger’s guidance. The property at 44 Pierce Street contained Hellinger’s office and space for prayer, religious study, and instruction. Both properties were located in a commercial zoning district.
After Kingston replaced its zoning ordinance in 2023, municipal officials issued violation notices alleging that the properties were being used impermissibly as a dormitory or boarding house and as a school. On the day before Rosh Hashanah in 2024, officials executed administrative search warrants and condemned both buildings based on asserted safety and code violations. Kingston subsequently conditioned reopening on compliance with both its building code and zoning ordinance and threatened daily $500 zoning citations. Anash and Hellinger sued under RLUIPA and other federal and state laws, but the district court denied their request for preliminary relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Circuit reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction. It concluded that Anash and Hellinger had made the showings necessary for preliminary relief against Kingston’s enforcement of the 2023 zoning ordinance. The continuing exclusion from the properties substantially interfered with religious exercise, disrupted congregational worship, and caused irreparable harm that was not cured merely because imperfect alternative locations existed.
The court remanded with instructions for the district court, on an expedited basis, to set security at no more than $500 and enter an injunction prohibiting the Kingston defendants from restricting access to or use of the Pierce Street properties because of actual or alleged noncompliance with the 2023 zoning ordinance. The injunction must also prohibit daily $500 citations based on actual or alleged violations of that ordinance. The ordered relief addresses zoning enforcement; it does not categorically prevent Kingston from enforcing legitimate building-safety requirements.
Key Takeaways
- Preventing access to property used for worship, religious instruction, and religious communal living can constitute a substantial burden under RLUIPA, particularly when the exclusion seriously disrupts an established congregation.
- The availability of imperfect alternative meeting places does not necessarily eliminate irreparable harm from the loss of property used for religious exercise.
- The injunction is limited to enforcement based on the 2023 zoning ordinance and does not provide blanket immunity from valid building-code and safety enforcement.
Why It Matters
The decision strengthens RLUIPA protections in the Third Circuit when municipal land-use enforcement blocks access to property used for religious exercise. It also cautions courts against treating the theoretical availability of alternative locations as sufficient to defeat preliminary relief when government action has already disrupted worship and dispersed congregants.
At the same time, the remedy preserves a distinction between zoning restrictions and genuine safety regulation. Municipalities may address substantiated building hazards, but they may not use zoning noncompliance to perpetuate an exclusion that likely violates federal religious-land-use protections while litigation proceeds.