A federal judge ruled on Thursday that the Flathead Warming Center can reopen for overnight stays while its lawsuit against the city of Kalispell winds through the court system.  

Judge Dana Christensen determined that the Warming Center made a credible argument that the city’s conditional use permit revocation process was unfair, and that irreparable harm would be inflicted on the shelter and its guests without an injunction. 

“While the Court is sympathetic to the experiences of community members, it is illogical to assume that decreasing services to the homeless will alleviate the adverse effects the city is experiencing,” Christensen wrote. 

Beginning Thursday, the Warming Center was open again for overnight stays throughout the winter pending the outcome of the lawsuit. Warming Center Executive Director Tonya Horn said at a Nov. 7 press conference that she expects to see 35 to 45 out of 50 beds filled immediately.  

“We’re absolutely thrilled,” she said. 

Christensen granted the requested preliminary injunction after hearing arguments from litigators representing both the North Meridian Road homeless shelter and the city of Kalispell in a day-long hearing at the U.S. District Court in Missoula on Oct. 25.  

The legal fight between the embattled homeless shelter and municipality came after City Council opted to rescind the Warming Center’s conditional use permit, which allows it to operate as a shelter, in a 6-3 vote on Sep. 16. The effort was led by City Councilor Chad Graham, who argued that the shelter violated its permit by failing to live up to assertions made by the nonprofit’s leaders during the application process. Councilors in favor of revocation also cited neighborhood complaints that the low-barrier shelter had an adverse effect on the neighborhood.  

The Warming Center — represented by the national nonprofit public interest law firm, the Insititute for Justice — subsequently sued the city in federal court for violating state and federal law, arguing the revocation stripped the shelter’s vested right in the property and denied it a fair trial. Shelter leadership asserts it never violated any law or reneged on promises to “be a good neighbor.” 

The city refuted the claims, arguing Council was within its power to rescind the shelter’s permit and undertook a fair process outlined in city code that was communicated to the shelter after complaints began popping up in the spring. During the revocation process, city officials repeatedly said conditional use permits existed by the grace of Council, meaning the body could repeal it at any time.  

Christensen, though, pointed out that city code lacks any provision giving Council authority to revoke a conditional use permit.   

It was not the only time that Christensen took the city’s arguments to task in his ruling. Lawyers for the Warming Center called the judge’s skepticism a good sign.  

“It is a preliminary decision, but it is a bellwether for where the court is going and what the court is thinking,” said Institute for Justice attorney Christie Herbert during a press conference announcing the judge’s ruling. 

Christensen criticized the city’s grounds for revocation and the unreasonable expectations it placed on the shelter such as requiring staff to act as law enforcement.  He also determined, based on testimony made at the hearing, that “there were no false representations” made in the Warming Center’s application.  

“‘Being a good neighbor’ strikes the court as subjective, nebulous, and thus a meaningless basis for rescinding the conditional use permit — and that is assuming, arguendo, that a conditional use permit is revokable after all conditions have been met in the first place,” Christensen wrote. 

The federal judge also found the city’s inability to determine how far afield the shelter needed to go to police its guests a point of concern. He noted that Mayor Mark Johnson, who testified for the city, “was not able to delineate the geographical boundaries of where the city believed the Warming Center’s policing responsibilities begin and end.”  

Reporter Jack Underhill can be reached at junderhill@dailyinterlake.com and 758-4407.