This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
In 2020, Word Seed sought to purchase property for worship services in Homewood, but the village’s zoning ordinance required Word Seed to obtain a special use permit. Word Seed sued Homewood alleging that the special use permit requirement violated RLUIPA’s provisions on equal terms, unreasonable limitations, and substantial burdens, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The district court found that Word Seed did not suffer an injury because it did not apply for a special use permit, and dismissed the suit for lack of standing.
On appeal, Word Seed argued that while they failed to argue future injury before judgment was entered in this case, the fact that they withstood dismissal in a parallel litigation—a suit involving a different village and pending before a different district judge in the same federal district—was an extraordinary circumstance that warranted relief. The court rejected this position, noting that it is well-settled that a motion to reconsider is not the proper vehicle to raise new arguments that could and should have been raised prior to judgment. Here, Word Seed attempts to overcome this well-settled principle by arguing that their successful litigation in a parallel suit constituted “a significant change in the law.” The court held that a decision by another district judge was not controlling precedent, and therefore could not constitute a significant change in the law. As Word Seed failed to show any extraordinary circumstances in this case, the district court’s decision to deny Word Seed’s Rule 60(b) motion was upheld.
Word Seed Church v Village of Homewood, 2022 WL 3095971 (7th Cir. CA 8/4/2022)