UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHICAN
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC., and STEVE
Civil No. ________________
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COMPLAINT
CITY OF
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH CORPORATION,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs,
as taxpayers of the
JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF THIS
COURT
2. This is an
action claiming violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the
3.
In addition, this is an action to redress the deprivation, under color of
state law of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the
4.
In addition, this action seeks declaratory judgment that the actions of
the defendants violate the constitutions of the
5. Venue is
proper in the Eastern District of Michigan, where defendants reside, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §
1391(b)(1) and 1391(b)(3).
6.
A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim
occurred in this judicial district, making venue proper under 28 U.S.C.
§
1391(b)(2).
7.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over claims relating to
the Michigan Constitution.
PARTIES
8.
Plaintiff American Atheists, Inc. is a non-profit corporation under the
laws of the State of
9.
Plaintiff Steve Walker is an individual who is a citizen of the United
States, of the State of Michigan, and of the City of Detroit, and he owns real
estate in the City of Detroit, State of Michigan. Accordingly, he pays taxes to the
10.
11.
12.
Defendant Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (“DEGC”) is a non-profit
quasi-governmental corporation under the laws of the State of
CONTROLLING LAWS
13. The First Amendment to
the Constitution of the
14.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
15.
Under the Fourteen Amendment, the States are subject to the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Cantwell
v. Connecticut,
310
16.
The
Section 4.
Every person has a right to worship Almighty God according to the
dictates of his own conscience, and no person can of right be compelled to
attend, erect, or support, against his will any place of religious worship, or
pay any tithes, taxes or other rates, for the support of any minister of the
gospel or teacher of religion.
17.
The
Section 5.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious
societies, or theological or religious seminaries.
COUNT ONE – First
Amendment
18.
Under a program named the Lower Woodward Redevelopment Initiative,
Defendant DDA allocated the sum of $11.18 million during the fiscal year
2004-2005 for grants to property owners for improvements to façades and parking
lots within the boundaries of DDA Development Area No. 1 (“Façade Improvement
Program”).
19.
Under the Façade Improvement Program property owners who made exterior
building improvements were eligible to receive up to $150,000 in matching funds
from Defendant DDA.
20.
In addition, under the
Façade Improvement Program property owners who made parking lot edge
improvements were eligible to receive up to $30,000 in matching funds from
Defendant DDA.
21.
Defendant DDA has paid or approved seven grant applications to pay
approximately $690,000.00 under the Façade Improvement Program to improve real
estate owned by two churches, to wit:
22.
The funds paid or to be paid to the two churches described above were
derived from taxes levied by the
23.
Both the
24.
The payment of funds by the DDA to the two churches described above
violates the prohibitions of the United States Constitution, Amendment I, that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” as applied
to the states and their municipal corporations through the Fourteenth
Amendment.
25.
The payments to the two churches described above are ultra
vires and void.
COUNT TWO – Michigan Constitution, Art. I, Sec.
4
26.
Re-allege paragraphs 1 through 22 above.
27.
The properties for which improvements were paid by Defendant DDA under
the Façade Improvement Program described above, are “place[s] of religious
worship” within the meaning of the Michigan Constitution, Article 1 (Bill of
Rights), Section 4.
28.
The grants to the two churches described above constitute erection and
support of places of religious worship against the plaintiffs’ will in violation
of the Michigan Constitution, Article 1 (Bill of Rights), Section
4.
29. The two
churches described above are “minister[s] of the gospel or teacher[s] of
religion” within the meaning of the Michigan Constitution, Article I (Bill of
Rights), Section 4.
30. The grants
to the two churches described above constitute taxes or other rates for the
support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion in violation of the
Michigan Constitution, Article I (Bill of Rights), Section
4.
31.
The payments described above are ultra vires and void under
the Michigan Constitution, Article I (Bill of Rights), Section
4.
COUNT THREE – Michigan Constitution, Art. I, Sec.
5
32.
Re-allege paragraphs 1 through 22 above.
33.
The two churches described above are “religious societies” within the
meaning of the Michigan Constitution, Article I (Bill of Rights), Section
5.
34.
The grants to the two churches described above violates the prohibition
that “No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious
societies, or theological or religious seminaries” in the Michigan Constitution,
Article I (Bill of Rights), Section 5.
35. The
payments described above are ultra vires and void under the
Michigan Constitution, Article 1 (Bill of Rights), Section
5.
COUNT FOUR – Declaratory
Judgment
36.
Reallege paragraphs 1 through 35, above.
37.
Plaintiffs request a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201 that the
payments of funds to the two churches described above violate the constitutions
of the
COUNT FIVE – Injunctive
Relief
38.
Reallege paragraphs 1 through 35, above.
39.
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
40.
Plaintiff’s will be irreparably harmed unless the defendants are
restrained and enjoined from further payments of funds to the two churches
described above.
41.
Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed unless the defendants are
mandatorily enjoined to recover and recoup all payments described above from the
two churches.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court:
1. Issue a
declaratory judgment adjudging that the payment of funds to the two churches
described above violates the constitutions of the
2. Issue
preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining the defendants, their
employees, agents and intermediaries from paying funds to the two churches
described above.
3. Issue
preliminary and permanent mandatory injunctions requiring the defendants to
use all deliberate speed to recover and recoup from the two churches all funds
paid pursuant to the Façade Improvement Program, and report the results of their
efforts to this Court.
4. Award
plaintiffs their costs of suit and their attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C.
§
1988.
5. Award such
other and further relief that this court may deem just and
proper.
Dated:
April ,
2006. _______________________________
Robert J. Bruno
(#12415)
Robert J. Bruno, Ltd
1601
E. Highway 13,
952-890-9171
_______________________________
Allan S. Rubin
Draper & Rubin, PLC
Attorneys for plaintiffs