JCRL Amicus in Christian Mission v. Passaic
JCRL Amicus in Christian Mission v. Passaic
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................... ii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE....................................... 1
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.......................................... 3
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS...................... 5
ARGUMENT....................................................... 5
I. Many religious communities must limit public access to
certain areas due to their faith......................... 5
II. N.J.S.A. § 54:4-3.6 contains no public access requirement.
........................................................ 11
A. By its own terms, N.J.S.A. § 54:4-3.6 requires only
“actual use” and nothing more.......................11
B. Other provisions of N.J.S.A. § 54:4-3.6, and parallel
tax exemption statutes, support a reading of actual
use that is inclusive of non-public uses............13
III. Constitutional avoidance counsels against a “public
access” requirement that could pose unconstitutional
conditions.............................................. 17
CONCLUSION.................................................... 25
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Dwenger v. Geary,
14 N.E. 903 (Ind. 1888) .....................................20
ii
Girls Friendly Soc’y v. Cape May City,
26 N.J. Tax 549 (T.C. 2012) .................................12
iii
Presbyterian Home at Pennington, Inc. v. Borough of
Pennington,
409 N.J. Super. 166 (App. Div. 2009) ........................13
Rust v. Sullivan,
500 U.S. 173 (1991) .........................................17
Speiser v. Randall,
357 U.S. 513 (1958) .........................................18
Watson v. Jones,
80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1872) ...............................24
Westbrook v. Penley,
231 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2007) ..................................20
iv
Zorach v. Clauson,
343 U.S. 306 (1952) ..........................................8
N.J.S.A. § 52:27D-489r.........................................14
N.J.S.A. § 54:4-3.6........................................passim
N.J.S.A. § 54:4-3.64...........................................13
N.J.S.A. § 54:32B-8.13.........................................14
Scholarly Authority
Other Authorities
v
The Mechitzah: Partition, Chabad.org,
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/
365936/jewish/The-Mechitzah-Partition.htm (last
visited Feb. 21, 2020) .......................................7
vi
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
1
that have been the indispensable foundation upon which its
our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them
worship how, where, or what they may.” Art. of Faith 11. And it
2
doctrine and that are essential to accomplishing its religious
mission.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
did not qualify for a tax exemption in part because the church
Aug. 30, 2019) (per curiam), certification granted, 222 A.3d 337
3
restricted due to their sacred character or religious purpose.
all faith traditions. Amici therefore ask this Court to reject the
also lacks grounding in the statutory text. The text of the tax
affairs and their right to reserve sacred areas apart from the
general public.
This Court should reverse the decision below and clarify that
the tax exemption statute requires no more than what its text
importantly, this Court should reject the view that actual use
4
property is in use. Such a clear statement would ensure that the
the parties.
ARGUMENT
Summit, New Jersey, for instance, are holy women who have dedicated
their lives to offer their prayers and penance for the Church. See
5
https://www.summitdominicans.org/what-is-a-dominican-nun (last
St. Mary’s Abbey houses Benedictine monks who pray, work, and live
distinct from its weekly services – are open only to those willing
to meet “the high standards set by the Lord for entrance.” Church
manuals/preparing-to-enter-the-holy-temple/2011-01-00-preparing-
6
God, and it plays an important role in the life of all Church
faithful Church members from many localities and all walks of life.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/365936/jewish/The
practicing Jews. See, e.g., Rivkah Slonim, The Mikvah, The Jewish
Woman,
https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/1541/jewis
flourishing.
7
Promoting and encouraging the flourishing of religious
property tax exemption law. This Court has recognized that New
exemptions among others). To that end, New Jersey courts have long
343 U.S. 306, 313-14 (1952). That is not only because Americans
Being,” id. at 313, but also because “those who adopted our
Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 400-01 (1993) (Scalia, J.,
8
concurring in the judgment). Our first President declared religion
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp (last
visited Feb. 21, 2020); see also Ordinance for the Government of
the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health recently found that
women who attended services more than once per week had a 33% lower
and Mortality Among Women, 176 JAMA Internal Med. 777, 782 (2016)
9
(finding significance “robust” when controlling for various
good.
to the broader community, and do not depend upon all services being
serve. See Kali Bari Temple, 271 N.J. Super. at 249 (rejecting
community life.” Walz v. Tax Comm’n of N.Y., 397 U.S. 664, 672-73
10
been recognized as serving the public good and thus advancing the
11
N.J. Super. 365, 374 (App. Div. 2011). A property must be “actually
and (3) its operation and use of its property must not be conducted
Orange, 18 N.J. Tax 649, 653–54 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000)
test). And this Court has clarified that “necessary” does not mean
the church’s purposes); see Girls Friendly Soc’y v. Cape May City,
26 N.J. Tax 549, 566 (T.C. 2012) (citing Boys’ Club and noting
12
Until now, New Jersey courts have consistently declined to
Soc’y of Holy Child Jesus, 418 N.J. Super. at 386 (“[T]he Statute
28 N.J. Tax 311, 323 (T.C. 2015) (building only “sometimes” used
less than one’s home or office – may be actually used without being
Pennington, 409 N.J. Super. 166, 185 (App. Div. 2009) (citation
omitted).
demanding than actual use, they know how to make that intention
13
land be “owned and maintained or operated for the benefit of the
N.J. 283, 297-98 (2009) (“We must presume that every word in a
must give those words effect and not render them a nullity.”).
1993 N.J. Laws 1017, 1018 (prior version applying to “all buildings
14
purposes” (emphasis added)), with Act of Jan. 29, 2001, ch. 18,
sec. 1, 2001 N.J. Laws 106, 107 (current version removing “and
4 N.J. Tax 391, 401–02 (T.C. 1982). While the Appellate Division
in the present case correctly noted the change in the law, it erred
15
Sisters of the Poor, http://www.littlesistersofthepoor.org/a-
Super. 533, 545 (App. Div. 1977) (finding that a property met the
Court has emphasized, terms “should be given the same meaning when
see Job Haines Home for the Aged v. Twp. of Bloomfield, 19 N.J.
16
In short, property can meet the actual-use standard without
serve the public good and yet not necessarily be open to the
Props., Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 208 N.J. 141, 172 (2011)
17
Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 191 (1991); see Whirlpool, 208 N.J. at 172
Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205, 214 (2013);
18
of the religious organizations, particularly the special
a public benefit that would penalize and inhibit the free exercise
general public. The United States Supreme Court has taken care to
19
interpretations” of internal church procedural rules offered by a
By the same token, many courts have found that government may
who disobey church teachings from the community – and the use of
Honolulu, 885 P.2d 361, 368 (Haw. 1994) (court may not analyze
Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc., 819 F.2d 875, 878–79 (9th Cir.
20
autonomy. Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp.,
LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365, 1377 n.4 (2018) (quoting Perry v. Sindermann,
Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993). The clause of the statute under
U.S. & Can. v. N.Y. City Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, 763
F.3d 183, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). Definitionally, such regulations are
Tenafly Eruv Ass'n, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144, 165–
21
[otherwise eligible recipients] from a public benefit solely
Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps. Council 31, 138 S.
Ct. 2448, 2463 (2018) (quoting Roberts, 468 U.S. at 623). The State
Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557, 580–81 (1995). Nor
22
acceptance would derogate from the organization’s expressive
message.” Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 659 n.4, 661
Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 863 (7th Cir. 2006); id. at 861–62
189 (2012); see id. at 200 (Alito, J., concurring, and Kagan, J.,
23
force with respect to religious groups, whose very existence is
acceptable.
Co., 213 U.S. 366, 408 (1909). Yet they are readily avoided by
This Court should reverse the decision below and decline to graft
traditions.
24
CONCLUSION
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
David R. Oakley
N.J. Attorney ID No. 037271990
Attorney for Amici Curiae
ANDERL & OAKLEY, P.C.
20 Nassau Street, Ste. 309
Princeton, NJ 08542
Telephone: (609) 921-1755
Facsimile: (609) 921-8907
[email protected]
Gordon D. Todd*
Erika L. Maley*
Derek A. Webb*
Christopher S. Ross*
Of counsel and on the brief
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street NW
Telephone: (202) 736-8000
Facsimile: (202) 736-8711
[email protected]
Christopher Pagliarella*
Of counsel and on the brief
YALE LAW SCHOOL
FREE EXERCISE CLINIC
1200 New Hampshire Ave Ste. 700
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202-830-1434
Facsimile: 202-955-0090
[email protected]
25