No taxpayer standing to challenge Rockland County zoning law favoring Orthodox Jews

A citizen's group and three named plaintiffs sued this community in Rockland County, claiming that a new zoning law for places of religious worship violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which mandates church-state separation. The plaintiffs lose. Why? They lack standing to sue.

The case is Citizens United to Protect our Neighborhoods v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, issued on April 5, eleven months after oral argument. Accommodating the Orthodox Jewish community, following contentious public hearings, the Village amended its zoning laws so that religious organizations can more easily build places of worship, causing plaintiffs to worry that the new zoning laws would "radically transmogrify the character of the Village." They sued in 2019. Five years later, we have a definitive resolution from the Second Circuit (Jacobs, Kearse and Sullivan), though not on the merits of the appeal. The Court instead says plaintiffs lack standing to bring this lawsuit.

Plaintiffs assert municipal taxpayer standing, which applies in certain cases alleging Establishment Clause violations if the taxpayer can show "a measurable appropriation or loss of revenue attributable to the challenged activity." But to gain standing this way, the plaintiff has to show the government made the appropriation "solely for the activities that the plaintiff challenges." In applying this test, however, courts will ensure that standing does not attach merely because the municipality's paid employees spent time on the challenged activities. Plaintiffs lose under this theory because, while they pay municipal taxes, those taxes are not spent or lost on the enforcement of the new zoning law. Nor does it matter that the village spent money in passing the new zoning law. Plaintiffs' taxpayer standing arguments are simply too generalized to allow them to bring this lawsuit.

Nor can plaintiffs assert "direct harm," or "direct exposure" standing, as they are not directly affected by the new zoning laws. They cannot show the new laws would cause them to be personally constrained or subject to control, such as if they were denied a liquor license simply because their establishment was situated near a church. Nor would the new zoning law affect plaintiff's religious practices. Since they cannot show the new laws would harm them personally, as opposed to the community as a while, there is no direct-harm standing.

How about "denial of benefits" standing? No dice, the Court says, as plaintiffs cannot show the new zoning law will cost them any benefits on account of their religion. The organizational standing argument also fails, as the new law does not directly regulate the organization and will not require the organization to expend or lose any resources. 

In the end, perhaps the only real way to challenge a zoning law like this is though the political process, the way you might challenge any other zoning law. Not all local laws can be challenged in court.