Justice Department Fights Religious Discrimination in Idaho Town’s Permit Denial

Justice Department Fights Religious Discrimination in Idaho Town’s Permit Denial

The Justice Department has taken action against the small city of Troy, Idaho, accusing it of religious discrimination. The city denied a zoning permit request from a local evangelical church that wished to hold worship services. This legal confrontation has sparked a significant discussion about religious rights and local governance.

On May 20, the DOJ filed a lawsuit claiming that Troy violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, also known as RLUIPA, after rejecting a conditional use permit. This permit was requested by Christ Church, aimed at enabling worship in a downtown C-1 zoning district, which currently permits various nonreligious assemblies like clubs and museums.

In 2000, RLUIPA was enacted as federal legislation designed to prevent discrimination against individuals and religious institutions in zoning laws. It ensures that churches are given equal opportunity to utilize properties for their congregational needs.

According to the lawsuit, Christ Church, based in nearby Moscow, Idaho, sought to expand its services in September 2022 due to rapid growth. The church serves a dynamic community, yet it has faced opposition from some residents over its evangelical beliefs and political influence.

Controversy Surrounding Christ Church

Christ Church has made headlines in the past, including instances where its members were arrested for not adhering to COVID-19 mask mandates during public worship events. The church’s senior pastor, Douglas Wilson, has also garnered attention for his provocative writings and calls for a more Christian-influenced America.

In its efforts to find a worship space in Troy, the church’s attempts to rent various locations proved futile. In a bid to create a dedicated space, Matt Meyer, a church elder who resides in Troy, purchased a vacant former bank building in the city’s business district. His plan included converting part of this property for church services while offering the remaining space for community events.

Acquiring a conditional use permit hinged on proving minimal impact on the surrounding business community. Meyer emphasized that the purchase would contribute to local property tax revenue. However, after a public hearing during which local objections were voiced, the city council denied the application in March.

The reasoning provided by the council stated that the church would not enhance the commercial appeal of the district and presented potential traffic and parking burdens. Troy has a modest population of fewer than 1,000 residents, leading to heightened apprehensions regarding potential congestion.

Cited Discrimination and Public Sentiment

The DOJ’s lawsuit raises questions about the validity of the city council’s reasoning. The department contends that the council’s justification for the permit denial does not hold up against scrutiny. Key points raised include the city allowing nonreligious events while denying religious gatherings similar in nature.

Furthermore, the city did not conduct an adequate traffic study or propose suitable conditions to mitigate concerns regarding traffic and parking. Testimonies from the public hearing indicated a level of animosity toward Christ Church and its beliefs, highlighting potential bias influencing the council’s vote.

The federal lawsuit claims that Troy’s actions constitute unequal treatment of Christ Church compared to nonreligious entities, creating a significant burden on its religious practices.

City attorney Todd Richardson has refuted the accusations. In a recent interview, he stated that Troy has permitted Christ Church to conduct services at the same venue for the past two years during the federal review. The attorney characterized the DOJ’s approach as intimidation.

Richardson explained that the issue extends beyond religious considerations, emphasizing the city’s commitment to maintaining its downtown area as a thriving commercial district. He expressed concerns about the logistical challenges presented by a large congregation gathering in a small town.

Meyer, the elder who filed the complaint with the DOJ, expressed a willingness to cooperate with city officials to address concerns, especially regarding parking. He labeled accusations of negative impacts from the church’s presence as unfounded, citing the high volume of vacant properties in downtown Troy.

The public hearing revealed palpable tension, with numerous residents vocalizing their opposition to granting the church a permit. Meyer argued that negative public sentiment could have significantly swayed the council’s decision-making process.

Recent Changes in Zoning Regulations

In April 2025, Troy adopted an interim zoning ordinance that redefined several permitted uses in the business district, now marking many previously allowed activities, including churches, as prohibited. This shift has raised further concerns about access to public facilities for religious organizations.

The DOJ’s announcement highlighted the federal government’s unwavering stance against zoning discrimination in matters of faith. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon stated that the RLUIPA expressly prohibits local governments from making land use decisions based on biases against particular religious groups. The DOJ is committed to pursuing legal action against jurisdictions that infringe upon these rights.

Pastor Wilson of Christ Church reiterated that public criticism of his views should not influence the city’s decisions regarding church activities. He firmly believes that the faith-based assembly should not be contingent on the approval of those who disagree with certain doctrines.

The Justice Department’s response to this contentious issue is still unfolding, with implications for religious freedoms in local governance. As the case progresses, it may set a precedent for how towns across the nation address similar requests from religious organizations.

This situation in Troy, Idaho, encapsulates a larger national debate about the intersection of religion and local laws, drawing attention to the essential balance that must be struck to protect both community interests and constitutional rights.