Latest Case: Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (Environmental Law)

The Perils of Relying on the Wrong Clause—Grounding the Ministerial Exception at the Supreme Court

IRA C. LUPU, ROBERT TUTTLE

GW Law professors Ira C. Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle explain why the path the U.S. Supreme Court is taking in ministerial exception cases—relying on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment—is dangerously misguided. Lupu and Tuttle argue that the ministerial exception rests primarily on the Establishment Clause and is strictly limited to employment decisions about who leads or controls a faith community, or who transmits a faith.

Read More

Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills

Docket: B292246(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 17, 2020

Judge: Laurie D. Zelon

Areas of Law: Environmental Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, in a California Environmental Quality Act action, granting a peremptory writ of mandate directing the City to set aside its approval of a mixed-use development project, and to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. The court held that petitioners did not forfeit their claim that they exhausted administrative remedies; at least one of the petitioners had standing under CEQA and thus the court has jurisdiction over the appeal; petitioners exhausted administrative remedies as to the cultural resource claims; an EIR is required to address the Project's impact on cultural resources; an EIR is required to address the Project's impacts on sensitive plant species; petitioners exhausted administrative remedies as to the oak tree claims; an EIR is required to address the Project's impacts on oak trees; and petitioners adequately exhausted administrative remedies as to each of their aesthetic resource claims and oak tree ordinance claims. The court also affirmed the trial court's post-judgment award of attorney's fees to petitioners as the successful parties in the CEQA action. The court held that CEQA's notice requirement does not preclude petitioners from recovering attorney's fees, and Appellant Gelfand is personally liable for his portion of the attorney's fee award.