The Athey Creek Church lawsuit is a federal case in which Athey Creek Christian Fellowship, a nondenominational church in West Linn, Oregon, sued Clackamas County under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) after the county blocked the second phase of a previously approved building expansion. The church lost at the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in July 2024, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling in a memorandum decision on December 19, 2025.
What the Fight Was About
In 2006, Clackamas County approved a conditional use permit allowing Athey Creek to carry out a phased expansion of its West Linn property. The church says the county told it no further land use review would be needed for later phases, and it spent $2.3 million on county-required road and infrastructure work as part of the deal.
The permit, however, included Condition 29. That condition stated the approval was “valid for a period of two years from the date of final written decision” and would expire unless the use was established within that window or the church filed a timely extension request. The underlying county provision behind Condition 29 was later repealed in 2011. The church finished phase one in 2015.
When Athey Creek moved to start phase two in 2022, the county took the position that the 2006 permit had expired. Under updated zoning rules, the project would be treated as a “primary use” and would need a fresh conditional use permit application. The church pointed to a 2013 message from the county describing a basement addition as “substantially consistent with the original conditional use permit” and argued the county had continued to treat the 2006 approval as live long after the two-year window closed.
The Claims the Church Brought
Athey Creek filed suit on November 4, 2022. Its complaint advanced several theories:
- A RLUIPA substantial burden claim, arguing that forcing a new permit application substantially burdened religious exercise.
- A RLUIPA equal terms claim, arguing that the county treated churches worse than comparable secular institutions by requiring conditional use permits.
- A RLUIPA facial challenge, arguing the ordinance was invalid because it excluded churches as a primary use.
- Free exercise claims under the First Amendment and the Oregon Constitution.
The church sought both an order allowing phase two to proceed and damages tied to the county’s refusal.
The District Court Ruling
Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You denied the church’s motion for a preliminary injunction on March 16, 2023, and on July 30, 2024, granted summary judgment to Clackamas County, dismissing the case with prejudice.
The court concluded that requiring a church to file a permit application does not itself amount to a substantial burden under RLUIPA. It found the record contained no evidence of “outward hostility toward or pretextual decision-making” by the county, which courts typically look for in successful RLUIPA claims. The court also noted the church had not shown that seeking an extension of the 2006 permit, or timely pulling building permits for phase two, would have been a substantial burden.
What the Ninth Circuit Decided
The Ninth Circuit affirmed on December 19, 2025, in a memorandum decision from a panel of Judges Morgan Christen, William A. Fletcher, and Andrew David Hurwitz. The affirmance rested on three independent grounds.
The Claims Were Time-Barred
The panel held that the church’s RLUIPA and Section 1983 claims were “facially time-barred.” RLUIPA claims carry a four-year statute of limitations; Section 1983 claims borrow Oregon’s two-year personal injury limit. The court found the claims accrued in 2006, when the church learned of Condition 29 and the county’s treatment of religious land uses. The 2022 complaint arrived well after both windows had closed.
The Phase-Two Challenge Was Not Ripe
To the extent the church attacked the county’s demand for a new application, the panel held those claims were not ripe. The church had never actually submitted a new application, so there was no final decision to review. Quoting its own ripeness standard, the court noted that “RLUIPA claims become ripe when the government adopts a ‘final definitive position’ regarding whether the Church will or will not be granted a permit.”
Estoppel Did Not Apply
Athey Creek argued the county should be estopped from claiming the 2006 permit had expired, given its earlier statements. The panel disagreed, finding no evidence of reliance on a “false representation.” The county’s 2006 statement that “phasing would be fine” and its 2013 note that a basement addition was “substantially consistent” with the original permit were, in the court’s view, not inconsistent with Condition 29 or with the later conclusion that the permit had lapsed as to phase two.
A factual point that came up at oral argument on October 23, 2025, cut against the church: both sides appeared to accept that no permits issued solely for phase two were obtained within the original two-year window, though the church’s counsel argued that many permits pulled between 2006 and 2015 covered the entire project.
The County’s 2023 Zoning Change
While the litigation was pending, Clackamas County changed the rules the church had challenged. In May 2023, the Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to direct staff to amend the Zoning and Development Ordinance. A June 2023 staff memorandum recommended removing the conditional use permit requirement for places of worship, allowing them as a primary use in most districts, repealing setback, lot coverage, and height standards that applied only to places of worship, and cutting parking requirements from 0.5 spaces per seat to 0.25.
The church continued to press its damages claims, arguing the county’s voluntary policy change did not extinguish its right to compensation for the earlier denial. The courts nevertheless dismissed those claims on the grounds described above.
Where Things Stand
The Ninth Circuit also denied the church’s motion to supplement the record on appeal. As of early 2026, court records do not indicate that Athey Creek has filed a petition for rehearing at the Ninth Circuit or a petition for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court. If the church wants to build phase two, the path the courts pointed to is the one it has not yet walked: file a new conditional use permit application with the county under the revised zoning rules and, if denied, litigate from a final decision.