Menu
  • Home
  • Case Pages
    • 2024 – 2025 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
    • 2023 – 2024 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2022 – 2023 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2021 – 2022 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2020 – 2021 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
    • 2019 – 2020 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
      • June Session
    • Pending Cases
      • All Pending Cases
      • Fully Briefed
      • Not Fully Briefed
  • Roundups & Interviews
    • Experts Roundups
      • The Chief Judge Vacancy
      • Matter of Harkenrider v. Hochul
      • The Mortgage Acceleration Cases
      • Doe v. Bloomberg LP
      • CNH Diversified v. Cleveland Unlimited
    • News Roundups
    • Interviews
      • Hon. Leslie Stein (NYCA)
      • Hon. Eugene Fahey (NYCA)
  • NYCA Stats
    • 2023-2024 Term
    • 2022-2023 Term
    • 2021-2022 Term
    • 2021-2022 Midterm
    • 2020-2021 Term
    • 2019-2020 Term
    • 2018-2019 Term
  • Jurisdictional Letters
    • Finality
    • Constitutional Question
    • Dissents
    • Statute’s Validity
    • Stipulated Judgment
    • Necessarily Affects
    • Miscellaneous
      • Aggrieved Party
  • Resources
    • How An Appeal Gets To The New York Court of Appeals
    • Court Decisions
      • NYCA Decisions
      • Lower Court Decisions
      • Second Circuit Decisions
    • Legislative Resources
      • NY Statutes
      • NY Session Laws
      • NYCRR
      • NY Register
    • Research Resources
      • NY Bill Jackets
        • Bill Jackets (1995-present)
        • About older bill jackets.
      • NY Constitutional History
      • NYCA Briefs and Records
        • NYCA Briefs (2013-present)
        • About older NYCA briefs.
      • Other Primary Resources
        • NYLawz
        • NY State Library
        • Hein NY Legal Research Library (sub)
    • Practice Resources
      • NYCA Practice Rules
      • NYCA Civil Practice Outline
      • Certified Questions Handbook
      • NY Citation Rules
    • News and Commentary
      • NY Law Journal (sub)
      • NY Appellate Digest
      • NY Court Watcher
      • The CPLR Blog
      • NY Appeals
      • NY Focus
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Contact Us
TwentyEagle

First Amendment not violated by application of zoning rules to outdoor religious festival (Town of Delaware v. Leifer).

Posted on 2019-11-212020-08-05

As we explained in our case summary, the question in this case was whether a town zoning ordinance violated the First Amendment by barring a “religious observance” by defendant that took the form of “an annual, multi-day, music festival attended by several hundred people.” The Court (DiFiore, CJ.) held that the zoning ordinance did not violate the First Amendment.

The Court first held that the zoning ordinance clearly prohibited the defendant from using his land to hold a music festival. Defendant’s land was located in a rural district. Under the ordinance, land use in a rural district was limited to any principal permitted use (e.g., agriculture) or any specifically permitted accessory use. A three-day outdoor music and camping festival, however, did not come within the scope of any of the principal or accessory uses enumerated in the ordinance for a rural district.

The Court then rejected defendant’s First Amendment argument. Applying intermediate scrutiny to this “time, place and manner” restriction, the Court held that the ordinance served a significant government interest–i.e., “to preserve a balance of agricultural and low-impact non-agricultural land uses.” The ordinance was narrowly tailored to further that interest because it allowed “a limited and balanced suite” of uses and its prohibition of other “more obtrusive uses” was not “substantially broader than necessary” to further the Town’s interest. And the ordinance left open ample opportunities for other expression because it would have allowed defendant’s expression in other districts, it allowed expression consistent with permitted uses, and it permitted landowners to seek a variance.

The Court also rejected a void-for-vagueness challenge to the ordinance. The plain text of the ordinance, the Court held, was sufficient to alert “a person of ordinary intelligence” that a three-day outdoor music and camping festival was not a permitted use and would require either a variance or a special use permit.

Return to the case page for Town of Delaware v. Leifer.

By Phil on 2019-11-21.
Return to the case page.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com