## Facts

- A Roman Catholic archdiocese and parish owned a monastery and chapel in Cumberland, Maryland, located within the Washington Street Historic District.
- The Church considered the buildings in disrepair, financially burdensome, and unsuitable for current parish needs.
- The Church sought to demolish the structures and replace them with smaller modern facilities, plus gardens and parking to support ministry and worship-related activities.
- Under the City’s historic-preservation ordinance, demolition in the district required a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission, and the ordinance included exemptions or discretionary bases for approving demolition in certain circumstances.
- The Church applied for a demolition certificate; the Commission denied the application.
- The Church submitted affidavits from Church officials and parishioners asserting that, under Roman Catholic law and tradition, replacing the facilities was religiously required and important to the parish’s spiritual life.
- After the court had dismissed the Church’s RFRA count earlier in the case, the Church moved for summary judgment on several remaining constitutional counts grounded in free exercise and related theories.

## Issues

1. Whether denying demolition under a facially neutral historic-preservation ordinance substantially burdened the Church’s free exercise of religion, triggering heightened scrutiny.
2. Whether the City could justify the burden where it did not argue, on the summary-judgment record, that historic preservation was a compelling governmental interest in this case.
3. Whether the ordinance’s exemptions and discretionary waiver features affected the constitutional analysis of the City’s refusal to accommodate the Church’s asserted religious need.

## Decision

- The court granted the Church’s motion for summary judgment on the specified constitutional counts.
- The court held that the City’s denial of the demolition certificate imposed a substantial burden on the Church’s religious exercise by preventing construction of facilities the Church asserted were required for worship and ministry.
- Because the ordinance allowed discretionary exemptions and the City did not present a compelling-interest justification on the record, the City failed to meet the level of justification the court required.
- The ordinance was held unconstitutional as applied to bar demolition of the Church’s structures.

## Legal Principles

- Government action that prevents a religious institution from using its property in a manner it sincerely asserts is religiously required can constitute a substantial burden on free exercise.
- When a regulatory scheme contains exemptions or discretionary waivers, denial of an accommodation to a religious claimant who faces a substantial burden may require a strong governmental justification and narrow tailoring.
- At summary judgment, a government’s failure to assert and support a compelling (or comparably weighty) interest and a sufficiently tailored means of achieving it can leave no triable issue and warrant judgment for the religious claimant.
- A facially neutral historic-preservation ordinance may be unconstitutional as applied if, in operation, it unjustifiably burdens religious exercise.

## Conclusion

The district court concluded that the City’s refusal to permit demolition substantially burdened the Church’s free exercise and, given the ordinance’s discretionary features and the City’s lack of a compelling-justification showing on the summary-judgment record, ruled the denial unconstitutional as applied and entered judgment for the Church.


Keeler v. Mayor & City Council of Cumberland, 940 F. Supp. 879 (D. Md. 1996)