Filed Date: Feb. 4, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case, brought by the United States Government, claims that a borough's zoning ordinance treats religious institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions, limiting religious assemblies within the area.
The federal government brought this suit against the Borough of Kingston in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on February 4, 2026. The case was assigned to District Judge Karoline Mehalchick. The government sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which prohibits a land use regulation from treating a religious institution on less than equal terms than a nonreligious institution.
Kingston is home to a growing Chabad Orthodox Jewish Community; because Jewish religious law prohibits the use of vehicles on major Jewish holidays, a Chabad place of worship must be within walking distance of congregants' homes. In 2023, Kingston replaced its zoning ordinance with a new ordinance ("2023 Ordinance"). However, the 2023 Ordinance prevents the placement of places of worship in residential districts, unless a special exception is granted by the local zoning board. The government also alleges that the 2023 Ordinance places more onerous requirements on places of worship, as places of worship under the Ordinance must meet additional landscaping and parking requirements and be placed on a lot area of one acre or more.
On February 6, 2026, Judge Mehalchick approved a consent order, resolving this case. The agreed-upon terms included amendments to the 2023 Ordinance that allowed places of worship in all residential districts and removed the acreage, landscaping, and parking requirements for places of worship. In addition, the consent order created a complaint procedure for individuals for who believe Kingston violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The consent order will continue until February 6, 2030, and allows the government to seek additional remedies if Kingston fails to perform.
This case is ongoing, as the consent order is still in effect.
Summary Authors
Jinan Abufarha (2/7/2026)
Allison Opheim (4/17/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72230226/parties/united-states-v-borough-of-kingston/
Mehalchick, Karoline (Pennsylvania)
Butler, Michael (Pennsylvania)
Legomsky, Katie (Pennsylvania)
Sacks, Noah D. (Pennsylvania)
Rhoads, Stephen Gage (Pennsylvania)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72230226/united-states-v-borough-of-kingston/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:15 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations By the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 4, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Other Dockets:
Middle District of Pennsylvania 3:26-cv-00269
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
Discrimination Area:
Case Summary of United States v. Borough of Kingston, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47801/ (last updated 4/17/2026).