Opinion ID: 754226
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Significant Nature of the Injunctive Relief Granted

Text: 64 The district judge seriously understated the significance of the injunction entered in this action and the government action. Although the district judge believed the injunction had no practical effect benefiting plaintiffs because they personally had not theretofore been stopped from conducting home worship services, it is plain that the injunction removed a substantial threat of such interference. The injunction, which is quoted and described in greater detail in Part I.B. above, not only prohibited the Village from taking any action in any way to deny housing or make housing unavailable to any person on the basis of religion, it also 65  required the Village to amend its zoning code in specified ways to, inter alia, allow residential places of worship; 66  enjoined the Village from interpreting its zoning code so as to obstruct assembly in residential dwellings for the purpose of group prayer; and 67  enjoined the Village, along with its officers, employees, agents, and all those acting in concert or participation with them, from engaging in any conduct having the purpose or effect of perpetuating or promoting religious discrimination or of denying or abridging the right of any person to equal opportunity on account of religion. 68 This relief was plainly important in light of the jury's findings that the Village had violated plaintiffs' rights under the FHA and had conspired to violate their rights under the First Amendment, and in light of the supporting trial evidence (a) that ACA's principal purpose in pushing for the incorporation of the Village was to permit Airmont to adopt a zoning code that would curtail home synagogues; (b) that ACA and its members were intent on harass[ing] Orthodox and Hasidic Jews and did harass them, see, e.g., LeBlanc-Sternberg I, 67 F.3d at 420; (c) that ACA had its slate of candidates elected mayor and trustees of the Village; and (d) that the trustees appointed the ever-vigilant, anti-[home synagogue] ACA member Montone, id. at 429, to the board that would interpret the Village's zoning code. 69 As we stated in LeBlanc-Sternberg I, the record contained ample support for the jury's implicit finding that Airmont's zoning code would be interpreted to restrict the use of home synagogues, that the motivation behind the enactment [of that code] was discriminatory animus toward Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, and that Airmont pursued this goal jointly with ACA, id. at 431. And as we stated in affirming the injunction, that relief was necessary to ensure that the Village could not hinder or prevent worship in homes. LeBlanc-Sternberg II, 1996 WL 699648, at  4. 70 Thus, the injunctive relief granted was significant for plaintiffs and for other Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish residents of Airmont as well. Moreover, as the district judge himself stated, even while denying plaintiffs' motion for fees, the amendments to the zoning code may be helpful to any new religious groups which desire to hold services in a private home in a residential area. Fee Decision at 8 (emphasis added). When a plaintiff obtains an injunction that carries a systemic effect of importance or serves a substantial public interest, a substantial fee award may be justified. Carroll v. Blinken, 105 F.3d at 81. This is such an injunction. 71