Today, the Supreme Court concluded that an elected official may be verbally censured for actions and speech without the censure offending the First Amendment. Houston Community College System v. Wilson<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-804_j426.pdf> A couple of cases from the past several days ICYMI. But first - You can still register for a discounted rate for the IMLA seminar and defense of Section 1983 program in DC. https://imla.org/seminars/ The office rate (everyone in the office can join virtually) is just $1750 and many large cities who are members will have a dividend for membership that can be applied to that fee lowering it even more. I plan to be in DC and hope to see you there. This next case is an amazing win for the county and the following case will make you - well - I'm not sure. 4th Circuit - RLUIPA - Land Use - Religious uses In a case having facts dating back to my tenure as County Attorney and time both before and after, the 4th Circuit upheld Montgomery County's treatment of a land use against a RLUIPA challenge. Not just because it arose in Montgomery County, but because of its facts and holding I feel it will be a major case for citation. Essentially, the case involved undeveloped property in one of the most expensive areas of the country facing significant development pressures. The property was not served by water or sewer which affected what the property could develop into. When the developers faced continued obstacles in getting a water and sewer change, they figured selling a portion of the property to a church would compel the county to make the change under RLUIPA (seriously, its in the record). A series of contracts ensued between the owners, developers and at least one church. Ultimately, the court concluded that RLUIPA was to no avail because the parties knew what the law was going into the contracts, that the law was not focused on limiting religious uses, the comparator used was not similarly situated and the county offered a potential alternative, albeit for a reduced number of congregants by offering to consider extending water and allowing septic use of the property. A quote from the decision: "The undisputed facts surrounding the negotiations for the purchase of the Property, as well as the terms of the contracts themselves, clearly demonstrate that Appellants were well aware of the regulations restricting the Property. Because Appellants knowingly entered into a contingent sale agreement for property that was expressly excluded from receiving public sewer access under the master plan, they could not have had a reasonable expectation of the County approving their WSCCRs for public sewer access." I worked for 12 years with the folks from Montgomery County who were on this brief and you'll not find better lawyers anywhere. Each made me look good which was no easy task. 202185.P <https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/202185.P.pdf> Canaan Christian Church v. Montgomery County, Maryland ND Illinois - Fines and Fees - Ouch This case was reported on the Volokh Conspiracy blog and frankly, makes local government look really bad. Bear in mind however that the case is at the pleading stage and the facts may turn out to be quite different. I hope so. From the court's opinion: "The Village of Melrose Park decided that it would be a good idea to issue 62 tickets to an elderly couple for having lawn chairs in their front yard. The Village issued ticket after ticket, imposing fine after fine, to two eighty-year-old residents, Plaintiffs Vincent and Angeline Cozzi. The fines were not small potatoes. Each ticket cost $500, so the Village tagged them with fines totaling about $30,000. And when it was all said and done, the Village slapped them with a lien on their house, for good measure. The tickets faulted the Cozzis for creating a nuisance and for "unsanitary conditions." The tickets did not explain what was unsanitary about the plastic lawn chairs. But the Village claimed that they were receiving anonymous calls about "clutter" on their front lawn. The Cozzis, for their part, didn't view their lawn furniture as wasteful clutter. In fact, they regularly used the furniture to sit outside, and visit with loved ones in a socially distanced manner during the pandemic. The fresh air and companionship apparently cost them $30,000. A reader might be wondering how things could have gone so dramatically off the rails. The Village of Melrose Park, it seems, reacted poorly when Plaintiff Michael Cozzi (the adult son of Vincent and Angeline) complained about the first two tickets, and about the mistreatment of his parents more generally. Michael Cozzi attended public meetings in Melrose Park, and he expressed his concerns on social media about the Village harassing his elderly parents. That free expression led to an avalanche of tickets. The Village issued the Cozzis a $500 ticket nearly every business day from December 3, 2020 to March 3, 2021. Christmas Eve was no exception. The tickets would financially cripple the Cozzis, an elderly couple on a fixed income. {The fact that the Village wasn't ticketing anyone else wasn't for lack of opportunities. The complaint is chock-full of pictures of other houses in the neighborhood. The surrounding lawns are adorned with used mattresses, a 15-foot skeleton with a Santa hat, garbage, and trampolines. There are reindeer, swans, candy canes, stars, pergolas, tchotchkes, and Christmas decorations at various degrees of garishness. Not to mention plenty of lawn furniture. What were those lawns missing [according to the Complaint]? Tickets.} The retaliation stretched beyond the tickets. Michael Cozzi received a handwritten note from a police officer warning him about supposed parking violations. Several parking tickets soon followed. And that's not all. The police surveilled the home several times a day. Michael Cozzi received threatening text messages from unknown or restricted phone numbers. Someone broke his car window. And on one occasion, the Mayor of Melrose Park, Ronald Serpico, drove by and verbally threatened Michael Cozzi with violence. If the reader is thinking that things have, at this point, gone completely off the rails, buckle up, because the ride is not yet over. In January 2021, as the deluge of tickets rained down, Michael Cozzi went to a public meeting at the Village of Melrose Park to express his concerns. The meeting, it turns out, was recorded. And to put it mildly, Mayor Serpico responded poorly. He unleashed what can only be described as a filthy, profanity-laden tirade with racial overtones. He told him where to go, and then some." The facts that followed might make some blush due to the profanity allegedly used by the Mayor during public meetings, but I'll not burden this email with more. I'll only end by noting that the court concluded that the Mayor's actions were sufficient for the Plaintiffs to assert a Monell claim against the Village. Cozzi v. Village of Melrose Park,gov.uscourts.ilnd.396329.77.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)<https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.396329/gov.uscourts.ilnd.396329.77.0.pdf> Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! IMLA's 2022 Mid-Year Seminar<https://imla.org/seminars/>, April 8-11, 2022 in Washington, D.C.! IMLA's 2022 Annual<https://imla.org/annual-conference/> Conference, October 19-23, 2022 in Portland, OR! Check out our On-Demand webinar library<https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/shopping/shopping.aspx?site=imla&webcode=shopping&cart=0&shopsearchCat=Merchandise&productCat=Webinar> with 100+ webinars at your fingertips.