Opinion ID: 1908499
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the church's free-exercise claim.

Text: We now address the church's argument that the trial court erred in determining that its claim under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was not yet ripe for adjudication. [14]
The church does not contend that historic designation in any way impedes its current use of the five rowhouses. Because the rowhouses have been designated historic, however, the church would be required to comply with various permit procedures before it could begin renovations as part of its Vision 2000 plan. See D.C.Code §§ 5-1004, -1005 (1994) (governing applications to demolish or alter historic properties); Donnelly Assocs., supra note 6, 520 A.2d at 271-72 (describing application procedures); 10 DCMR §§ 2505, 2507-08 (1994) (prescribing content of applications to demolish or alter). The church has not applied for such a permit, however, arguing that compliance with these procedures would burden its religious freedom because the permit process would delay the Vision 2000 plan and increase the church's costs in connection with the renovations. The church asserts that the social ministries to be housed in the new buildings are essential to its religious beliefs. Historic designation, the argument goes, unconstitutionally burdens the church's free-exercise rights because it may not renovate the five rowhouses without first applying for a permit. The trial court held that the religious-freedom claim was not ripe for judicial decision because it was predicated solely on harm that might occur in the future. The historic designation did not interfere with the church's current use of the properties for its social programs, and, as for the Vision 2000 plan, the church had not even tried to apply for a permit to alter or demolish the properties as it wishes. The trial court noted that such a permit might well be granted with minimal expense and delay.
Although this court, an Article I court, is not bound by constitutional concerns of ripeness, mootness, and justiciability, we have nevertheless followed these principles as prudential doctrines `to promote sound judicial economy' in recognition `that an adversary system can best adjudicate real, not abstract, conflicts.' Hessey v. Burden, 615 A.2d 562, 572 n. 17 (D.C.1992) (quoting District of Columbia v. Walters, 319 A.2d 332, 338 n. 13 (D.C.1974)); see also Smith v. Smith, 310 A.2d 229, 231 (D.C.1973) (holding that original action was not ripe for adjudication). The purpose of the ripeness doctrine in this context is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. Abbott Lab. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). Whether a claim is ripe for judicial determination is a question of law which the Court of Appeals reviews de novo. See Lee v. Oregon, 107 F.3d 1382, 1388 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 328, 139 L.Ed.2d 254 (1997); New Mexicans for Bill Richardson v. Gonzales, 64 F.3d 1495, 1499 (10th Cir.1995); Riva v. Massachusetts, 61 F.3d 1003, 1007 (1st Cir.1995); Action for Children's Television v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 313 U.S.App.D.C. 261, 267-68, 59 F.3d 1249, 1255-56 (1995); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cisneros, 52 F.3d 1351, 1361 (6th Cir.1995); Presbytery of New Jersey of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church v. Florio, 40 F.3d 1454, 1462 (3d Cir.1994); Charter Fed. Sav. Bank v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 976 F.2d 203, 208 (4th Cir.1992); cf. United States v. Felder, 548 A.2d 57, 61 (D.C.1988) (discussing this court's standards of review). In rule-making cases, we are to determine ripeness with reference to two criteria: (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. Abbott Lab., supra, 387 U.S. at 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507; accord, Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 508 A.2d 930, 934 (D.C.1986). Under this two-pronged test, we agree with the trial court that the church's free-exercise claim is not ripe for adjudication.
With regard to the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, the first step is to determine whether the issues raised are legal or factual in nature. See Washington Gas Light, supra, 508 A.2d at 934. While purely legal questions may be presumed to be fit for adjudication, see id., the question here would be whether the permit requirements attending historic designation unconstitutionally burden this church's free exercise of religion. [15] The question presented is not purely legal because at this stage of the proceedings, before the church has even attempted to assemble a permit application, we do not know how burdensome the permit requirements may in fact prove to be. All permit applications must include photographs of the building and immediate neighborhood, as well as architectural drawings illustrating the proposed changes. [16] See 10 DCMR §§ 2505.2-.4 (1994). Applications for preliminary review must include additionally an approval from the zoning administrator, see 10 DCMR § 2505.3(c), while applications for a building permit shall include, but not be limited to, the photos, drawings, and zoning approval stated above, as well as unspecified other [m]aterials required by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs or the Surveyor, 10 DCMR § 2505.2, and, in certain cases, evidence of the applicant's ability to complete the project, 10 DCMR § 2505.5 (1994). Thus, the specific requirements of any particular application, or the time and expense necessary to prepare it, cannot be determined as a legal matter but depend on the development of facts which are absent from the record before us. [R]ipeness is peculiarly a question of timing, Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 140, 95 S.Ct. 335, 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974), and we should consider whether we would benefit from deferring review until the `question arises in some more concrete and final form,' Washington Gas Light, supra, 508 A.2d at 934 (quoting Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency, 245 U.S.App.D.C. 179, 189, 759 F.2d 905, 915 (1985)) (other citation omitted). This consideration of concreteness also weighs against adjudication, for several reasons. First, it is not clear in the record that the Vision 2000 program had advanced to such a stage that the church had developed an immediate concrete plan for renovating the properties. At the hearing before the Board, as well as in the memo submitted to the Board and the pleadings in this case, representatives of the church spoke only in general terms about their intentions to expand the facilities currently available in the rowhouses. [17] Second, even if Vision 2000 has since evolved into a more definite plan for renovating the properties, we cannot say that there is a concrete dispute between the parties in the absence of a decision on a permit application or at least some preliminary steps toward that end; in other words, we cannot conclude that historic designation inflicts a concrete injury on the church at this time. See Smith, supra, 310 A.2d at 231; Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew, supra note 15, 505 N.Y.S.2d 24, 496 N.E.2d at 190-91 (rejecting, on ripeness grounds, church's constitutional challenge to landmark designation, substantially because church had not yet applied for renovation permit). In short, there is no real dispute between the church and the local government, and there is the possibility that none will ever arise. A final factor bearing on fitness for adjudication is the finality vel non of the agency action. See Washington Gas Light, supra, 508 A.2d at 934. While the Board's decision to include the five rowhouses in the historic district is final, there is no finality as to the effect of that action upon the church's plans or activities. Thus the effect of being subject to the permit requirements of historic designation is at this stage undetermined. See Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew, supra note 15, 505 N.Y.S.2d 24, 496 N.E.2d at 190 (finding lack of finality). We cannot say that there is finality with regard to the church's chief complaint, an alleged unconstitutional interference with its envisioned renovations. Appellant calls our particular attention to a case from the State of Washington involving that state's landmark designation law, First United Methodist Church v. Hearing Examiner for the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board, 129 Wash.2d 238, 916 P.2d 374 (1996). [18] The court struck down the application of that law to the house of worship of the appellant church without requiring that a permit first be sought. The court made clear that it was rejecting any per se invalidation of the law with respect to all churches but concluded that the church there had demonstrated that as applied to it, the law significantly burdened its free exercise of religion. See id. at 381. Included among those burdens was the inability to readily sell the church property and use the proceeds to advance its religious mission. [19] The court noted that it was resting its decision not only on its interpretation of the federal constitution but also on the Washington state constitution, which provides broader protection to religious freedom. See id. at 380-81. In any event, we are not persuaded that the particular record before us, even with the stricken exhibits, presents the question of unconstitutional burden in a sufficiently concrete factual form to ensure that a definitive constitutional ruling at this point would not be premature.
The second prong of the Abbott Laboratories test requires us to consider the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. 387 U.S. at 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507. [T]his inquiry, from the standpoint of the challenging party, entails an examination of the certainty and effect of the harm claimed to be caused by the administrative action: whether it is `sufficiently direct and immediate' and whether the action's `effects [have been] felt in a concrete way.' Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew, supra note 15, 505 N.Y.S.2d 24, 496 N.E.2d at 189 (quoting Abbott Lab., supra, 387 U.S. at 148, 152, 87 S.Ct. 1507). On the record before us, we are unable to perceive the requisite certainty and effect of any alleged hardship. We simply do not know with any precision what would be involved in attempting to comply with the permit procedures. Moreover, any hardship may never arise if the church does not effectuate its Vision 2000 plan in a manner in which the historic designation proves an actual burden. In sum, the church has not shown that historic designation has had a direct and immediate effect upon its rebuilding plans or that it has felt the burdens of the permit process in a concrete way sufficient to overcome the lack of ripeness. [20] For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Superior Court is Affirmed.