Justice Department weighs in on Chatham church rezoning
The Civil Rights Division filed the statement in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina supporting a claim by Summit Church-Homestand Heights Baptist Church under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The church alleges the county unlawfully denied an application to rezone several parcels of land to allow the church to build a new place of worship.
'[The law] protects the rights of religious groups to exercise their faith free from the precise type of undue government interference exhibited here,' Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a release. 'The Civil Rights Division is committed to defending religious liberties as our founders intended and as federal law requires.'
The church worshiped at East Chapel Hill High School for several years, but has grown and now needs additional space to meet the religious needs of its congregation.
In its complaint, Summit Church claims that the denial of its rezoning applications by the board treated the church on less than equal terms to nonreligious assemblies and imposed an unjustified substantial burden on its religious exercise.
Summit Church filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order requiring the County to approve the church's rezoning request and associated site plan.
The county moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the zoning decision is a 'legislative act' under state law and is therefore not controlled by the federal law. The department's statement of interest supports the church's claim that the federal law protects against the county's discriminatory zoning decision.
As part of this initiative, the department distributed a letter to state, county and municipal leaders throughout the country to remind them of their obligations under federal law, including its requirement that land use regulations treat religious assemblies and institutions at least as well as nonreligious assemblies and institutions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 days ago
- USA Today
Department of Justice wants to inspect swing state voter rolls
The Justice Department effort has targeted battleground states. It follows a March executive order. The Department of Justice is going state by state to scrutinize how officials manage their voter rolls and remove ineligible voters. The effort is so far focused on battleground states and follows President Donald Trump's widely challenged executive order in March that sought to create new requirements to register to vote and backed a range of voting policies long supported by Republicans. In nearly identical letters to state election officials in Minnesota, Nevada and Pennsylvania, the Department of Justice asked them to describe how they identify people who are felons, dead, nonresidents or noncitizens, and how they remove them from their voter lists. A letter to Arizona officials said the state should be requiring people who have driver's license numbers to register to vote using that number instead of the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. The Department of Justice said the office should conduct a review of its voter file. The department also sued Orange County, California for not providing enough identifying information in response to a records request; and filed documents in support of lawsuits brought by the right-leaning group Judicial Watch that say Illinois and Oregon have not been not removing enough people from their voter rolls. 'It is critical to remove ineligible voters from the registration rolls so that elections are conducted fairly, accurately, and without fraud,' said Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said in a statement that a spokesperson provided to USA TODAY. She said the department would 'vigorously enforce' federal law that requires states to 'conduct a robust program of list maintenance.' From 2024: Republican Party sues over absentee ballots, voter rolls in battleground states Several of the states in question have competitive elections in November 2026, when all seats in the House and one-third of the seats in the Senate are on the ballot. Minnesota has a race for an open Senate seat. Arizona and Pennsylvania have multiple competitive House races, and there will be a tight race for a House seat in California that includes part of Orange County. Americans are more likely to get struck by lightning than to commit in-person voter fraud, according to a study from the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan good government group based at New York University. 'I do think this is part of a broader effort number one to lay the groundwork for attempts to overturn election results that they don't like in 2026,' said Jonathan Diaz, the voting advocacy director at Campaign Legal Center. 'So they can cook up some story about how these states' voter rolls can't be trusted and so we can't trust their election results if Democrats win.' Trump's March executive order alleged that previous administrations didn't do enough to keep noncitizens of the voter rolls and said having accurate voter rolls protects voters. What DOJ wants from the lawsuits In Orange County, the Department of Justice wrote in a federal lawsuit in June that the Attorney General received a complaint about a noncitizen receiving a ballot, and that the department requested five years of data on how the county removes noncitizens from voter registration rolls. The county provided information but redacted identifying numbers and signatures, among other things, according to the lawsuit. The Department of Justice says that's illegal, and wants the federal court to force the county to provide the full information. Diaz said the Department of Justice in general is 'asking for a lot of very specific data about individual voters, which normally would not be necessary.' He said that information is much more specific than what states would provide to political campaigns or journalists, who often obtain voter registration files. The Department of Justice also asked Nevada and Minnesota for copies of their statewide voter registration list with both active and inactive voters. Inactive voters generally have not voted in recent elections and are put on the inactive list to preserve their registration while queuing them for future removal. Diaz said the requests read "like a fishing expedition." He predicted that the Department of Justice may find a human error, such as a noncitizen who checks the wrong box when getting their drivers license and registers to vote, and then "make that a referendum on the entire electoral system." 'They are looking for anything they can find so they can yell about noncitizen voting or dead people voting or whatever their conspiracy theory of the day is," Diaz said. Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, a right-leaning organization that advocates for government transparency, said many states are not doing enough to maintain clean voter rolls. He said his organization has sued multiple jurisdictions over the years to get about 5 million names removed from voter rolls, including in New York City and Los Angeles. Fitton said a voter registration list is 'a pool of names from which someone with problematic intent can draw to engage in fraud. And the appearance of dirty voting lists undermines voter confidence and participation.' The conservative Heritage Foundation alleges there have been about 1,600 cases of voter fraud over a period of many years. That compares to more than 150 million people voted in the 2024 presidential election alone. Fitton acknowledged that showing up to vote in another person's name requires a level of "chutzpah" that "might be a step too far to even political fraudsters." He posited that it'd be easier to impersonate a dead voter, but concluded: "All that is speculation. The law requires the names to be cleaned up, and it's not being done." In its federal lawsuit in Oregon, which the Department of Justice is backing, Judicial Watch alleges the state has too many people on its voter rolls in comparison to its voting-age population, and wants the federal court to force the state to develop a new removal program. Oregon contends that the organization doesn't have the right to sue and hasn't proven it's been harmed, which are both necessary for the suit to move forward. In Illinois, Judicial Watch says that 11 counties removed no voter registrations between November 2020 and November 2022, and 12 other counties removed 15 or fewer during the same time period. The suit does not allege that anyone voted illegally, but questions whether so few voters could have moved or died. The Illinois State Board of Elections declined to comment on pending litigation. 'When Illinois voters cast their ballots, they should be confident that their vote is given its due weight, undiluted by ineligible voters,' the Department of Justice wrote in its July 21 filing in the case. 'This confidence is the bedrock of participatory democracy.'
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
Five questions about Jeffrey Epstein with Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown
Julie K. Brown's 2018 Perversion of Justice investigation revealed how the U.S. Justice Department gave the now-deceased sex trafficker the deal of a lifetime and cut his victims out of the process. That reporting led the Southern District of New York to bring new sex crime charges against Epstein in 2019, but he died in federal custody one month later in what has been ruled a suicide. Epstein's vast network of high-powered friends, including President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton, along with Epstein's shocking death, have given rise to numerous conspiracy theories. When the U.S. Department of Justice declined to release more information about its investigations into Epstein, it led to public outcry and caused a rift in the Republican Party. The Miami Herald asked Brown five questions to help readers separate fact from fiction in a scandal that continues to capture the public's attention like no other. The conversation has been edited for clarity. Q: Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly told President Donald Trump earlier this year that he is in the Epstein files. Is that a surprise? What do you think might be in the files related to Trump's relationship with Epstein? A: Well, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were very good friends for many years. They moved in the same social circles in New York and in Palm Beach, where they both had homes, and they both had a lot in common. They both liked beautiful women, as Trump is often quoted as saying, noting that Epstein liked them on the younger side, as he said in an interview many years ago. So we know that they were friends. We are uncertain how close they were and also uncertain as to when their friendship had broken off because we kept hearing that they had a falling out at some point over a real estate deal and then later over an incident that happened at Trump's club Mar-a-Lago, involving a member who claimed that Epstein hit on his underage daughter. From that point, from what we understand, there was a falling out, and there wasn't really as close of a friendship. But in the '90s and early 2000s, it was thought that they were pretty close. Trump had to know that he was in the files in some aspect because there have been plenty of stories written about him being on the plane, and the plane logs are part of some of these files. It's been well reported that he was part of the so-called little black book, which was essentially a phone directory that had almost every single imaginable phone number that Trump had, including his car phone, his secretary and his office. And then the third thing is he was on the message pads as having called Epstein back in the early 2000s. When the Palm Beach police searched Epstein's home, they found hundreds and hundreds of message pads, and Trump's name was on some of those, indicating that he had called Epstein. So, it'd be hard to believe that Trump didn't realize his name was in the files in some aspect since the black book itself was part of those files. Q: Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Ghislaine Maxwell on Thursday, and the U.S. House Oversight Committee plans to talk with her in August. What kind of information do you think Maxwell could reveal? A: Ghislaine Maxwell knows pretty much everything, I think. She was what the victims consider the mastermind of Epstein's sex trafficking organization. She was recruiting women to both work for Epstein and help schedule his trysts with these girls, these massage sessions, as they were called at the time. But she started the ball rolling by going into spas and gyms throughout Palm Beach and giving her business card to to young girls and telling them, 'You know, I work for a very wealthy man. He is looking for a masseuse. You can make a lot of money.' And that's what got the ball rolling. Some of the victims consider her in some aspects worse than Epstein because they felt safe with her. Here was this woman that was a very nurturing kind of personality, very bubbly, telling them that this man's fine, he's going to help you. And they trusted her to some degree. So then to learn that she was part of the crime was a real betrayal to them because they were sort of tricked into this world by Ghislaine Maxwell. Q: In the wake of the Justice Department's decision not to release files from its investigation into Epstein, they are now seeking to have grand jury records released from the two federal investigations into Epstein and its investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell. What do we think these records will show? A: The Justice Department right now seems to be limiting its scope of what it's going to release or try to get unsealed. There were apparently two grand juries in Florida that were seated back in 2005 and 2007. Then there was another one in 2019 concerning Epstein's crimes and another in 2020 concerning Maxwell's crimes. At least that's what the motion that was filed by the Justice Department indicated. And so what they're seeking is all the underlying documents, mainly the testimony that was presented before all these grand juries. It's hard to know what was in the earlier grand jury because it never resulted in an indictment. The records that we do have concerning the early federal probe into Epstein indicates that the prosecutors were having a hard time being able to present witnesses before those grand juries because Epstein's lawyers kept trying to intervene and present all kinds of reasons for them not to go before a grand jury. So it was very messy at the time, and we really don't know how successful they were in presenting any kind of evidence back then. And then in 2019, the FBI ended up reinvestigating the case. We know that there was another grand jury, but we believe that the information that was presented to the grand jury back in 2019 was very narrowly focused on the minimum amount of evidence that they would need to get an indictment for Epstein. Traditionally in grand jury cases, you don't present your whole case anyway. You don't present all your witnesses. You just try to find a minimum amount of information in order to get an indictment. You can always do another indictment if it turns out the case is bigger than that or there's more crimes that you encounter, but initially you just want to get a minimum indictment. And that's what happened in 2019 and also with Maxwell in 2020. Q: Is there an Epstein list? If so, who do you think is on it? A: I don't think there was a proverbial Epstein list, per se. It was Maxwell who kept his little black book. Epstein wasn't really adept at using computers, and he used other people that worked for him to compile things on computers, for example, so I don't think he had a singular list. What I do think is that he was a businessman and that he probably kept files on these men because a couple of the victims said that Epstein had quizzed them after their massage slash sex sessions about what kind of things the men enjoyed in the bedroom. And they thought that he was doing that in order to get something on the men. Q: No one understands the Epstein story better than you do. Why do you think it has held the public's attention for so long? A: I think that the reason why the Epstein story has held the public's attention is because it's a mystery that has all the elements that people gravitate toward. It has money, politics, sex, crime and mystery, because we really don't know all the answers. I think the public is very suspect of our government and the way that it operates. There is a distrust of the way that our government withholds information, for example, or covers things up, in their minds. So I think that this is an example of a case that still is a mystery, even after 20 years. We don't know all the answers, and it's a horrific crime. One would think that our government would have wanted to get to the bottom of how this happened a long time ago. If you have more questions for Julie K. Brown, fill out the form below to send her a question. Can't see the form below? Click here to fill it out.
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Boston Globe
What to know about the man charged with trying to assassinate Trump in Florida
Here's what to know about the case. The judge lets Ryan Routh represent himself U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon signed off Thursday on Ryan Routh's request to represent himself during his trial but said court-appointed attorneys need to remain as standby counsel. Advertisement The judge told Routh that she believed it was a bad idea for Routh to represent himself, but he wouldn't be dissuaded. Routh, who has described the extent of his education as two years of college after earning his GED certificate, told Cannon that he understood and would be ready. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On Friday, the judge was hearing a motion from prosecutors to limit unrelated evidence at trial. 'As the Court knows, Routh has been very explicit in his desire to turn this trial into a circus where his supposed good character is weighed against the President's,' the prosecutors wrote. Routh is a self-styled mercenary leader The 59-year-old Routh was a North Carolina construction worker who in recent years had moved to Hawaii. A self-styled mercenary leader, Routh spoke out to anyone who would listen about his dangerous, sometimes violent plans to insert himself into conflicts around the world, witnesses have told The Associated Press. Advertisement In the early days of the war in Ukraine, Routh tried to recruit soldiers from Afghanistan, Moldova and Taiwan to fight the Russians. In his native Greensboro, North Carolina, he had a 2002 arrest for eluding a traffic stop and barricading himself from officers with a fully automatic machine gun and a 'weapon of mass destruction,' which turned out to be an explosive with a 10-inch-long fuse. In 2010, police searched a warehouse Routh owned and found more than 100 stolen items, from power tools and building supplies to kayaks and spa tubs. In both felony cases, judges gave Routh either probation or a suspended sentence. Routh is charged with attempted assassination Authorities said Routh tried to assassinate Trump, who was running for his second term last September as the GOP presidential nominee, while he played golf at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida. Routh is facing five felony counts in federal court in Fort Pierce, Florida. They include attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate; possessing a firearm to carry out a violent crime; assaulting a federal officer; felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Judge presided over Trump's classified documents case If the judge's name sounds familiar, it's because she presided over another high-profile case involving Trump — the classified documents case. Last year, Cannon sided with Trump's lawyers who said the special counsel who filed the charges was illegally appointed by the U.S. Justice Department. Cannon's ruling halted a criminal case that at the time it was filed was widely regarded as the most perilous of all the legal threats the president faced before he returned to office last January. Advertisement Cannon was a former federal prosecutor who was nominated to the bench by Trump in 2020. Trump was not hurt in the incident He was fine. U.S. Secret Service agents stationed a few holes up from where Trump was playing golf noticed the muzzle of an AK-style rifle sticking through the shrubbery that lines the course, roughly 400 yards away. An agent fired, and the gunman dropped the rifle and fled in an SUV, leaving the firearm behind along with two backpacks, a scope used for aiming and a GoPro camera. He was later stopped by law enforcement in a neighboring county. Last September's assassination attempt took place just nine weeks after Trump survived another attempt on his life in Pennsylvania.
