## Facts

- Seattle adopted a landmarks preservation ordinance authorizing designation of historic landmarks and imposing “controls” requiring prior city approval to alter protected features.
- The Landmarks Preservation Board nominated First Covenant Church’s building as a landmark and, after a public hearing over the Church’s objection, designated it a landmark.
- The Board adopted controls preserving the church’s exterior and the City Council enacted an ordinance specifically designating the church and incorporating those controls.
- The designation required the Church to obtain city permission before making exterior alterations, including changes tied to religious use.
- The City relied on a “liturgical exception” under which exterior changes “necessitated by changes in liturgy” would be approved, but only after submission, review, and possible negotiation.
- The Church alleged the designation reduced property value and interfered with its ability to use, alter, or dispose of the property in furtherance of its religious mission.

## Issues

1. Whether the Church’s pre-enforcement declaratory action presented a justiciable controversy ripe for review.
2. Whether applying Seattle’s landmarks preservation scheme and designation controls to a church violated free exercise under the First Amendment and article I, section 11 of the Washington Constitution.
3. Whether, upon a showing of burden on religious practice, the City had to prove a compelling interest pursued through the least restrictive means.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment entered for the City.
- The court held the dispute was justiciable and ripe because designation and controls imposed present, direct constraints and the challenge turned primarily on legal questions.
- The court held the landmarks ordinance and the church’s designation ordinance were unconstitutional as applied to churches.
- The court concluded the scheme had a coercive effect on religious practice and the City did not justify that burden under strict scrutiny.
- The court rejected the liturgical exception as insufficient because it still subjected religiously motivated decisions to governmental review and potential delay and risked entanglement over what qualifies as “liturgical.”

## Legal Principles

- A declaratory judgment claim is justiciable when there is an actual, present dispute (or mature seeds of one) between parties with direct, substantial opposing interests and a judicial decision will be final and conclusive.
- A controversy may be ripe when the challenged governmental action is sufficiently final and additional factual development is unnecessary to decide the constitutional question.
- Once a regulation has a coercive effect on the exercise of religious beliefs, the government bears the burden to prove a compelling interest and that the regulation is the least restrictive means of achieving it.
- A permitting or approval regime that conditions religiously motivated property changes on discretionary, secular decisionmaking can burden free exercise even without a prior permit denial.
- A limited religious-use exception does not cure a free-exercise problem if it still requires submission, review, and negotiation, or invites official inquiry into religious categories.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court held that Seattle’s landmark designation and exterior controls, though serving historic-preservation aims, imposed a coercive burden on church free exercise by conditioning religiously motivated building decisions on governmental approval, and the City failed to satisfy strict scrutiny; the ordinances were therefore unconstitutional as applied to churches.


First Covenant Church of Seattle v. City of Seattle, 787 P.2d 1352 (Wash. 1990)