Why the Justice Department just sued a small Idaho town
The small town of Troy, Idaho, is facing a major legal problem.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against it based on religious freedom concerns.
The Justice Department alleges that town leaders are discriminating against a local evangelical church by unnecessarily preventing it from holding worship services in Troy's business district.
Troy officials say they're enforcing zoning law, not engaging in discrimination.
'The fact that it was this church had zero to do with the denial,' said Todd Richardson, Troy city attorney, to the Yakima Herald-Republic.
The religious freedom lawsuit filed by the Justice Department centers on Christ Church, an evangelical Christian house of worship that holds services in both Troy and Moscow, Idaho.
In late 2022, a leader at Christ Church sought permission from Troy to hold worship services at a former bank building downtown. The congregation needed a conditional use permit because the building was zoned for business, not religious events.
According to the Justice Department lawsuit, the city regularly allows noncommercial activity in its downtown business district, as well as noncommercial redevelopment. But many residents spoke against Christ Church's plan, including some who complained about the congregation's beliefs and practices, and Troy leaders denied the conditional use permit.
'In its denial of the application, the city said the 'great majority of the city residents' opposed approving the permit,' the Yakima Herald-Republic reported.
The City Council reaffirmed the denial on appeal.
In the new lawsuit, the Justice Department argues that Troy violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, when it denied the conditional use permit.
The denial stemmed from animus toward the congregation, not legitimate governmental concerns, the lawsuit alleges.
'RLUIPA unequivocally forbids local governments from deciding zoning matters based on their dislike of certain religious groups,' said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in a statement.
The lawsuit also accuses Troy of treating faith-based requests for zoning law adjustments differently than secular ones.
'The City Code, on its face, and in the C-1 zoning district where the Subject Property is located, treats religious assembly uses on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies or institutions,' the suit says.
In an interview with Fox News, Richardson, the Troy city attorney, rejected the Justice Department's claims and criticized it for using 'bullying tactics.'
'The case isn't about religion, he said, but about the city preserving the two-block downtown area as a commercial district and resisting the influx of as many as 15% of its population gathering at one location and putting a 'strain on the city's limited resources,'' Fox News reported.
Although Christ Church is a small congregation in a rural area of Idaho, this month is not the first time it has made national news.
In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the church's members were arrested for violating Moscow's mask mandate while singing hymns and protesting the city's pandemic-related public health rules.
President Donald Trump defended their protest in a social media post at the time, according to Idaho News 6.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Critics want U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi disbarred, but at what cost?
The Florida Bar on Friday dismissed a complaint brought by a coalition of about 70 liberal-leaning and moderate law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. The complaint accuses Bondi, Florida's former attorney general, of violating her ethical duties in her current job. As the Miami Herald reported, the complaint claims Bondi 'has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy.'' While Bondi may have violated ethical rules — that's unclear — disbarring a U.S. attorney general is extreme and could be a slippery slope. The move would no doubt be seen, perhaps rightfully so, as political retribution, and that would only add more fuel to the raging dumpster fire of our partisan politics these days. The complaint outlined three instances in which the coalition said Bondi's conduct violated Florida Bar rules and longstanding norms of the Justice Department. In one instance, they said, she fired a seasoned immigration lawyer who the Trump administration said sabotaged the case in the mistaken deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador. Another instance cited: A longtime federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia resigned rather than carry out enforcement orders that she said were unsupported by evidence. A third example: Several senior federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned after they refused to follow a Justice Department order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The Bar rejected the complaint Friday, as it had done with two previous complaints about Bondi by the same group, and cited a jurisdictional issue. It said it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.' The group includes two retired Florida Supreme Court justices, Barbara J. Pariente and Peggy A. Quince. Make no mistake: Bondi is deeply political. And she has shown her commitment to carry out President Donald Trump's agenda at all costs. Bondi has made it clear that the president's priorities and the DOJ's mission are, in her view, one and the same. This is a break in the fire wall that has long existed between the presidency and the Justice Department. But politicizing the law — or the Bar — isn't the answer, no matter which side is doing it. Ethical standards must be enforced. That's a cornerstone of the legal profession. But it's hypocritical to condemn Bondi's politicization of the DOJ while attempting a similar act via the Bar. We recognize that Trump's Justice Department is by design, political. And Bondi's actions have been extremely partisan — including when she placed the DOJ attorney on leave in the case of the Maryland man who had been wrongly deported a man to El Salvador. 'At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,' Bondi said in a statement. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.' The Florida Bar exists to ensure the integrity of the legal system is protected – not act as a political referee. It's understandable that some feel justified challenging Bondi's standing as a lawyer. Bondi's conduct does warrant scrutiny, and she holds an enormous amount of power as the U.S. attorney general. But the uncertainty of the times shouldn't be a reason to use the law to punish ideological opponents, even if we think the other side does it, here to send the letter.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Abrego Garcia indicted, returned to US to face federal charges
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is back in the U.S. to face a federal indictment in Tennessee accusing him of helping to transport across the country hundreds of people who had entered the U.S. illegally. Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S. marks a surprising turnaround in the mistakenly deported Maryland man's legal saga after months of litigation seeking to bring him back. Since sending Abrego Garcia to a Salvadoran mega-prison in March, the Trump administration has defied a judge's orders to return him to the U.S. or communicate their efforts to do so. The two-count indictment alleges the Beltsville resident conspired with others for nearly a decade to transport people, as well as narcotics and firearms 'on occasions,' in more than 100 trips from Texas to Maryland and other states. Experts have warned of a ongoing constitutional crisis due to the Trump administration's failure to grant Abrego Garcia a hearing or abide by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' rulings. However, his long-awaited return could mitigate any showdown between the executive and judicial branches. Justice Department officials said at a Friday afternoon news conference that they believed Abrego Garcia's indictment and return made the matter moot. 'Abrego Garcia has landed in the U.S. to face justice,' U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday. She said that El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who has previously refused to release Abrego Garcia, had agreed to return the 29-year-old after being presented with an arrest warrant. He is charged in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee with 'conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain' and 'unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.' In a filing to keep him detained in the U.S., the Justice Department said that Abrego Garcia's potential sentence, if he is convicted, 'goes well beyond the remainder of [his] life.' Abrego Garcia was stopped by Tennessee's highway patrol in 2022 while transporting eight people. Officers suspected that the matter 'was a human trafficking incident,' according to a Department of Homeland Security document, though Abrego Garcia was not initially detained or charged. That traffic stop appears to be at least part of the basis for the indictment, which was filed under seal in late May and cites the encounter. The indictment also accuses Abrego Garcia of being a member of MS-13. Since his deportation in March, which Xinis ruled was illegal, Abrego Garcia has been held in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center as well as in a smaller prison in Santa Ana. Trump administration officials had said that he was 'never coming back' to the U.S., despite a Supreme Court ruling affirming Xinis' order to facilitate his return. For months, the Trump administration has tried to publicly justify Abrego Garcia's removal, repeatedly accusing him of presenting a public danger. In April, Bondi posted a series of documents on X, including a 2019 'gang field interview sheet' from Prince George's County Police that cited a Chicago Bulls hat and a shirt as being 'indicative of the Hispanic gang culture.' The only other piece of corroborating evidence was a confidential source, according to the document, and members of the public have called the integrity of the police officer who authored the report into question. The 2019 investigation led to an immigration hearing, in which a judge decided Abrego Garcia could remain in the U.S. because 'it was more likely than not' he would be subjected to gang violence if deported back to his native El Salvador, which he left as teenager. The former Maryland resident's return may avoid the ugliest possible outcomes in his civil case, where the government has flouted Xinis' repeated orders for his return. 'It's at least a distraction,' and possibly a chance for the government to vindicate itself, said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond. But we're 'a long way from there,' and it's difficult to know what will happen in either courthouse, he noted. The indictment itself, he said, could go either way, depending on what evidence the Justice Department presents. On X, Congressman Andy Harris, a Trump ally and the lone Republican in the Maryland congressional delegation, said that returning Abrego Garcia, whom he called an 'already deported illegal alien criminal,' to the U.S. is 'a waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars,' implying that he will be deported again after he stands trial. Maryland Democrats said that Abrego Garcia's return, despite being under criminal charges, was a victory. In a statement Friday afternoon, U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat who first traveled to El Salvador to visit Abrego Garcia, said that the Trump administration has 'finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights.' 'As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it's about his constitutional rights – and the rights of all,' Van Hollen said. 'The administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.' 'Kilmar Abrego Garcia should not have been deported,' U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat, said. 'Even the Supreme Court demanded this President follow the law and return him to the U.S. It is right that due process will be afforded to him.' In an interview Friday on CNN, Maryland U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin said he did not know any Democrats who've defended Abrego Garcia's conduct because to this point, he has not been charged with a crime. However, Raskin said since his deportation, Abrego Garcia has been entitled to a proper court procedure. 'It's not a moral question, it's a legal question,' the Montgomery County Democrat said. To accentuate his point, Raskin compared Abrego Garcia's case to President Donald Trump's criminal prosecution last year in New York. 'He had every element of due process along the way,' Raskin said of the president. Democratic Rep. Glenn Ivey, who also traveled to El Salvador last month to see Abrego Garcia but was denied access, said in a CNN interview Friday that the Maryland father's return was likely due to the White House 'getting a lot of heat' about his case. 'It's good they could bring him back, and hopefully they'll bring back the other 250 plus Venezuelans and others who are in this odd status of deportation, even though they haven't done anything or been convicted of any criminal activity,' said Ivey, who represents the Maryland district where Abrego Garcia resides. Shortly after the indictment was unsealed, the Justice Department asked for Xinis to dissolve a preliminary injunction ordering Abrego Garcia's return, adding that the 'underlying case should be dismissed.' In that case, Xinis recently permitted the plaintiffs to seek sanctions against the U.S. government. She had not made any new rulings as of Friday afternoon. _____ (Baltimore Sun reporters Hannah Gaskill, Luke Parker and Ben Mause contributed to this story.) _____
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Killer of London, Ont., Muslim family appeals convictions, challenging use of manifesto at trial
Warning: This story contains distressing details. A London, Ont., man convicted of killing four members of a Muslim family and severely injuring a fifth member in a hate-motivated attack four years ago is appealing on three grounds, including that the judge should not have allowed the jury to consider his white nationalist manifesto. A Windsor jury found Nathaniel Veltman guilty in November 2023 of four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder. Three months later, then Superior Court Justice Renee Pomerance ruled his actions amounted to a "textbook case" of terrorism as defined under Canadian law. He was sentenced in January 2024. Friday's news of the appeal comes on the fourth anniversary of the killing of Yumnah Afzaal, 15, her parents — Madiha Salman, 44, an engineer, and Salman Afzaal, 46, a physiotherapist — and family matriarch Talat Afzaal, 74, a teacher and artist. The youngest family member, a boy, survived. Veltman drove his pickup truck into the family as they were taking an evening stroll on June 6, 2021. Appeal sought on 3 grounds "I appreciate that the community was horrified by this offence and the remaining members of the family were devastated by this offence. I respect that, and I feel very badly for both the family and for the community," Veltman's appeal lawyer, Stephen Whitzman, told CBC News. "Mr. Veltman, of course, has a right to exercise his full legal rights, including his right to an appeal, and it's my job as his lawyer to assist him in doing that, and I hope that everyone will understand that those two things can both exist together." WATCH | CBC's coverage of the judge's 2023 ruling in the Muslim attack case: The appeal is being sought on three grounds, based on court records obtained by CBC News: The judge erred in admitting the ideological evidence, including Veltman's white supremacist manifesto, titled "A White Awakening," which set out his political and racist views. The judge erred in admitting Veltman's statements to a police officer which were obtained via a "Charter breach," meaning he was not properly warned of his rights. The judge erred in refusing the defence application for a mistrial because of what Veltman's lawyer at the time called "inflammatory language" during the Crown's closing statement, including references to the crime scene and the grievous injuries suffered by the victims. Veltman's trial lasted 12 weeks. The jury heard evidence he was motivated by right-wing extremist and Islamophobic views, and he described himself as a white nationalist. He grew up in a strict Christian home and fell into a web of online hate during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial heard. Veltman testified in his own defence and said he took magic mushrooms a day before the killing in order to escape the "hell" of his mind. The killing galvanized London and Canadian society to create laws and groups that would combat Islamophobia. As it has on every anniversary of the killing, the community gathered Friday to reflect on the family, who became known as Our London Family, and to recognize the impact of the tragedy.
