This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawsuit over anti-Semitism by officials in the New York village of Atlantic Beach is being revived because they refused to abide by a settlement reached earlier that would have allowed a Jewish organization to operate a center in town, according to a report from First Liberty Institute.
The fight is over scheming by officials there to exclude Chabad of the Beaches, a Hasidic Jewish group, from opening a religious center.
In private messages Mayor George Pappas said, "Very true," when a fellow town official said, "Most people don't want the Chabad and just don't want to say it. Any secular Jew doesn't want them."
The private messaging deteriorated further, with comments like that Jews "procreate" too much, "don't tip" and "are "buying the world."
The town had claimed that it wanted to condemn the property, an old bank, and take it for municipal use, as soon as the Jewish group bought it.
But the lawsuit earlier noted that the property had been for sale for years, and the town never made any effort to acquire it until after the Chabad purchased it.
The legal team explained the newly filed complaint seeking to reopen the case pointed out, "In private communications produced in this case, Village officials freely and frequently engaged in open anti-Chabad and anti-Orthodox sentiment and trafficked in vile antisemitic tropes, including that Jews are 'buying the world,' 'procreate' too much, and 'don't tip.'"
It continued, "These messages reveal that the Village's proffered reason for seizing Chabad's property is and always has been pretextual."
The case came up in 2022, but in 2023 a settlement was reached.
That plan was "subject to several conditions, including the approval of basic building permits. Because the Village refused virtually all of those permits—including the use of the building for religious purposes—the agreement has been terminated and the lawsuit re-opened with an amended complaint," the legal team said.
A federal court already has issued an injunction preventing the village from taking the property, and now the new complaint seeks punitive damages.
"What we once suspected is now confirmed: Village leadership has been driven by blatant, openly expressed religious animus against their Jewish neighbors," said Jeremy Dys, First Liberty Institute lawyer.
"Rather than a neutral act by an unbiased city council, what we now know is that the decision to try to take Chabad's property by eminent domain was driven by a religious hostility to Hasidic and Orthodox Jews that has no place in our country."
When the Jewish group bought the bank, the town demanded to take it for a community center.
"In the two years since Chabad first challenged the attempted taking of its property, the Village has not had a single meeting, presented a single plan, or lifted a single shovel to build the community center it claimed was central to the future of the village. Those claims appear to have been pretext shielding the Village's religious animus," the lawyers explained.
WND reported earlier when U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert imposed a preliminary injunction against any action against the property until the case is fully resolved.
The judge expressed concern over the town's actions: "It is not the taking of the property, but rather the alleged resulting interference with Chabad's constitutional Free Exercise rights, that warrants finding irreparable harm upon the present record."
The judge had noted the town's decision "to acquire the property by eminent domain will burden Chabad's religious exercise by curtailing its outreach mission to the Jewish community and by eliminating its highly visible presence in the Village. Based upon the record evidence, and considering 'the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to [it], and the . . . administrative history,' as well as statements made by community members, the Village's acquisition decision was made in a manner intolerant of Chabad's members' religious beliefs and which would restrict Chabad's practices because of its religious nature. Thus, the Village's acquisition decision was targeted and not done neutrally, thereby requiring the Court to apply strict scrutiny in deciding whether that decision is constitutionally permissible."
