Month in Review – July 2026

Here are the highlights for July:

* Throughout July, discovery continued in our lawsuit against Genoa Township, Michigan.  We filed the federal civil rights lawsuit against the Township on behalf of Catholic Healthcare International (CHI).

In May 2021, Genoa Township unlawfully denied CHI the right to build a prayer campus with a Saint Padre Pio adoration chapel on its 40-acre, wooded property, prompting this federal lawsuit arising under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that prohibits religious discrimination in land use decisions.

In an interesting twist, on June 29, the district court certified for interlocutory appeal its order denying our motion for partial summary judgment (which we filed in November 2023!) on the issue of liability under RLUIPA, meaning that while there is not a final judgment yet in this case, the Sixth Circuit should weigh in on the dispositive “substantial burden” issue.

This is a rarity, but as the district court acknowledged in its order certifying the immediate appeal, this case has a long history and a prompt resolution is necessary.

A ruling on the substantial burden issue will resolve the case.  As the district court stated in its order certifying the appeal, “If plaintiffs can prevail on their substantial burden RLUIPA claim as a matter of law without any further factual development, then all that will remain before this Court will be the determination of the relief available to plaintiffs.”

In light of the district court’s order certifying the appeal, on July 6, we filed our “Petition for Permission to Appeal” in the Sixth Circuit, which was the next procedural step in the process.  We pray that the Sixth Circuit takes up this important religious liberty case!

You can read more about this important case here.

* We are continuing the discovery process in the Wilson v. City of Moscow case, in which we are representing Nate Wilson and his two sons, who were charged by the City with violating an ordinance that prohibits the posting of “advertising matter” on City property without written permission.

We filed this civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.

We are diligently collecting all of the relevant evidence and preparing our motion for summary judgment as the facts and law compel the court to rule in our favor.  Our motion and supporting evidence are due to be filed on or before September 1.

In this case, Nate and his sons have the distinction of being the only individuals ever charged by the City with violating the “advertising matter” ordinance, while the record shows without contradiction that the posting of flyers, decals, handbills, and other such “advertising matter” on City poles in this university town is a long-established practice.

The City targeted the Wilsons because the “advertising matter” they posted was critical of the City’s draconian COVID-19 restrictions and because City officials have developed and demonstrated an animosity toward Christ Church, a conservative Christian community to which the Wilsons belong.  In fact, the pastor is Nate Wilson’s father.

You can read more about this case here.

* On July 14, we filed a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing our lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department.  This lawsuit is a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a substantial LA property owner and manager.

The lawsuit alleges that the City’s shuffling of the homeless onto or near private property effectively destroys the value of the property and amounts to a violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a de facto condemnation under the California Constitution, and creates public nuisances.

The judge dismissed the lawsuit without permitting discovery.  Our motion for reconsideration presented sworn declarations from four homeless individuals who provided first hand knowledge of the City’s policy and practice of removing them during cleanup, but then directing them to return to the private property following the cleanup process—the very evidence the court originally said was missing.  As one would expect, it was a difficult process to locate homeless individuals who were able and willing to sign sworn declarations, particularly when doing so is against their self-interests as the City is the one permitting them to live on the private property.

On July 31, we filed our reply in response to the City’s opposition.

We have many other important cases at various stages of litigation.  You can read more about our work on our website.

Thank you for your prayers and financial support.  We couldn’t do what we do without them!