Laserfiche WebLink
8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:193 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />demands, MW would be completely prohibited at its current location from distributing <br />food and beverages to homeless individuals who come to its doors, a service that MW <br />believes it has a "religious duty" to perform. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 8, 27, 31-32, 38. The City <br />has also threatened to fine and criminally prosecute MW unless it ceases this practice. <br />Id. 113, 13, 31, 39. This conduct is sufficient to establish a "substantial burden" on <br />religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA. See Johnson, 23 FAth at 1215-16 (noting <br />that "government action that threatens `punishment[] to coerce a religious adherent to <br />forgo her or his religious beliefs"' may amount to a substantial burden) (quoting <br />Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also Wisconsin v. <br />Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 218 (1972) (holding that a "threat of criminal sanction[] to perform <br />acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs" burdened <br />religious exercise). <br />The City's decision to deny MW's COO and to threaten monetary and criminal <br />consequences is not a "mere inconvenience," as the City argues. Mot. at 12, 13. Rather, <br />the City has inflicted "substantial pressure" to compel MW to modify its behavior by <br />ceasing to perform "act[s] of charity in providing ... food and beverage items to the <br />poor and homeless persons." Compl. ¶8. In banning MW's practice, the City imposes a <br />substantial burden on MW's religious exercise. See Guru Nanak, 456 F.3d at 988; <br />Greene, 513 F.3d at 988 (holding that "an outright ban on a particular religious exercise <br />is a substantial burden on that religious exercise") (emphasis added). <br />As discussed earlier, the City's assertion that there is no substantial burden on <br />MW's religious exercise because food and drink distribution is "merely incidental" to <br />MW's operations, Mot. at 12, is both legally and factually incorrect. See Sec. II1.A <br />supra. The City's argument ignores the plain language of RLUIPA, which expressly <br />protects "any" religious exercise regardless of whether it is "compelled by, or central to, <br />a system of religious belief." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7) (emphasis added). It is therefore <br />irrelevant how "central" food distribution is to MW's religious beliefs in assessing <br />whether the City's conduct has substantially burdened religious exercise in violation of <br />13 <br />