III. Exhaustion of Remedies

• Library: Litigating Religious Land Use Cases (ABA) (2016 Ed.)

III. Exhaustion of Remedies

Ensuring that administrative remedies have in fact been exhausted is often a vital step that has tripped up many successful litigators across the country in RLUIPA cases and other land use disputes. While "ripeness" or "finality" involves a final decision on a land use issue within a community, "exhaustion of remedies" involves a determination that the land use applicant has pursued every internal review within a governmental entity prior to filing a federal lawsuit. In the context of land use, failure to exhaust administrative remedies at the outset could lead to wasting untold time and money.

In Grace Community Church v. Lenox Township,⁸⁶ the court explained the exhaustion of remedies doctrine as follows:

As opposed to finality, the Supreme Court has held that exhaustion "generally refers to administrative and judicial procedures by which an injured party may seek review of an adverse decision and obtain a remedy if the decision is found to be unlawful or otherwise inappropriate, and is not required before a plaintiff may bring a suit predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983."⁸⁷

Though not always required, exhausting administrative remedies commonly suffices to establish finality, which is a prerequisite for ripeness. Thus while finality and exhaustion of administrative remedies can overlap, they are distinct. But the overlap can be slippery, at times creating confusion not exclusively for litigants but for both sides of the bench. Indeed, the Sixth Circuit was divided on this matter in Miles Christi Religious Order v. Township of Northville.⁸⁸ In 2002, the Miles Christi religious order bought a home on a one-acre plot in Northville Township, Michigan. Six residents lived in the home, which had a small, 18-person chapel for daily masses and Bible study. After receiving several complaints about traffic and parking at Miles Christi, the township requested that Miles Christi submit a site plan for additional parking spaces on the property or seek a variance from the zoning board of appeals. Miles Christi made neither change, and in response the township issued a citation to the religious order.

Miles Christi then filed suit in federal court, alleging the township violated RLUIPA, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Michigan constitution.⁸⁹ The township moved to dismiss on the grounds that Miles Christi's claims were unripe because it had not received a final decision regarding the application of the township's zoning ordinances to its property. The district court agreed, and it reasoned that the township's final decision is yet unknown, since Miles Christi had not appealed the township's demand for a site plan to the zoning board.⁹⁰

In affirming the district court's...