Law Commons^™

"Zoning" Matters: Rluipa And The New Normal Of Religious Discrimination, Michael Allan Wolf

UF Law Faculty Publications

The protection of religious freedom under federal law waxes and wanes, depending on two unpredictable factors: judicial activism and congressional action. A review of dozens of cases involving alleged violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), including two recent cases heard by the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit, reveals for the first time that many litigants and judges have ignored the congressional injunction to limit the reach of RLUIPA to two (and only two) forms of land-use regulation: zoning and landmarking. Plaintiffs have instead used RLUIPA to challenge water and sewer, septic, fire prevention, building, …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Bruderhof, Clear, The Jewish Coalition For Religious Liberty, And The Sikh Coalition In Support Of Rehearing En Banc, Francesca Matozzo

Court Briefs

No. 22-30686
Damon Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, No. 3:21-cv-733 The Honorable Shelly D. Dick, Chief Judge

From the Summary of the Argument

The Fifth Circuit should rehear en banc the panel decision in this case because it presents a “question of exceptional importance” under Fed. R. App. P. 35: whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) authorizes monetary damages. This issue is exceptionally important for two reasons.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment, Casey M. Nokes, Meredith Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 1:22-cv-00156-CL
St. Timothy's Episcopal Church v. City of Brookings

From the Argument

Congress unanimously enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) to provide sweeping protection for religious exercise against discrimination in land-use regulation. To accomplish this goal, the statute generally prohibits the government from implementing land-use regulations in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person or organization. And several provisions—including the statute’s capacious definition of “religious exercise” and its broad-construction mandate—emphasize the statute’s breadth.

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Bruderhof, Clear, The Jewish Coalition For Religious Liberty, And The Sikh Coalition In Support Of Appellant, Stephanie Hall Barclay, Francesca Matozzo

Court Briefs

No. 22-30686
Damon Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, No. 3:21-cv-733 The Honorable Shelly D. Dick, Chief Judge

From the Summary of the Argument

The Fifth Circuit should re-examine its precedent to allow for monetary damages for individual-capacity suits under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for three reasons. First, RLUIPA’s text follows the same approach as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and should be interpreted to afford the same types of broad remedies. Before Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Bruderhof, Clear, Muslim Advocates, And The Sikh Coalition In Support Of Appellant, Stephanie Hall Barclay, Francesca Matozzo

Court Briefs

No. 22-2342
Thomas Walker v. John Baldwin

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, Honorable Iain D. Johnston (3:19-cv-50233)

From the Summary of the Argument

The Seventh Circuit should re-examine its precedent to allow for monetary damages for individual capacity suits under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for three reasons. First, RLUIPA’s text follows the same approach as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and should be interpreted to afford the same types of broad remedies. Before Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), reduced the …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellants, John A. Meiser, Francesca Genova Matozzo

Court Briefs

No. 22-11674
Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama No. 1:16-cv-00395

From the Summary of the Argument

This Court already corrected the district court’s errant understanding of RLUIPA’s substantial-burden analysis once in this case. Unfortunately, a second correction is needed now.

In Thai Meditation Association’s first appeal, this Court explained that “the district court misread our opinion in Midrash” and, as a consequence, had erroneously required the Association to show that the government “completely prevent[ed]” its religious exercise in order to demonstrate …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Religious Freedom Institute In Support Of Petitioner, John A. Meiser, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, Francesca Genova Matozzo

Court Briefs

No. 21-1405
Lester J. Smith v. Timothy Ward

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

Lester Smith comes to this Court in unusual circumstances: the district court found that the Georgia Department of Corrections offered no rationale that could justify its prohibition on beards longer than half an inch under RLUIPA, and yet— without disputing that finding—the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the State may still enforce the half-inch limitation against Smith. The Eleventh Circuit’s denial of any relief from what has been shown to be …

Paliotta V. State Dep’T Of Corrections, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (Sept. 14, 2017), Anna Sichting

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined it must consider the sincere religious beliefs of the individual when evaluating claims under the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). It is improper to evaluate those claims under the centrality test, which attempts to determine if the individual’s beliefs are central to a tenant of the religion in question. Once the sincere belief is shown, the courts must then fully examine the remaining considerations under the Free Exercise Clause and the RLUIPA.

Sex, Drugs, And Eagle Feathers: An Empirical Study Of Federal Religious Freedom Cases, Luke W. Goodrich

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents one of the first empirical studies of federal religious freedom cases since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Hobby Lobby. Critics of Hobby Lobby predicted that it would open the floodgates to a host of novel claims, transforming “religious freedom” from a shield for protecting religious minorities into a sword for imposing Christian values in the areas of abortion, contraception, and gay rights.

Our study finds that this prediction is unsupported. Instead, we find that religious freedom cases remain scarce. Successful cases are even scarcer. Religious minorities remain significantly overrepresented in religious freedom cases; Christians remain significantly …

(Communal) Life, (Religious) Liberty, And Property, John Infranca

Suffolk University Law School Faculty Works

Property rights and religious liberty seem to share little in common. Yet surprisingly similar claims have long been made on their behalf, including bold assertions that each of these two rights uniquely limits the power of the state and serves as the foundation for other rights. This Article reframes the conception of property rights and religious liberty as foundational by foregrounding communitarian aspects of each right. Property and religious freedom are a foundation for other rights, but in a different manner than traditional accounts suggest. It is not the individual exercise of these rights that provides a foundation for other …

Third-Party Harms, Congressional Statutes Accommodating Religion, And The Establishment Clause, Carl H. Esbeck

Faculty Publications

Those disappointed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), are actively seeking ways to otherwise limit the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissenting in Hobby Lobby, wrote that when a statute seeks to accommodate a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices there must be no detrimental effect on third parties who do not share those beliefs. Although it is unclear whether Justice Ginsburg was relying on the Establishment Clause as imposing this categorical restraint on the authority of Congress, some commentators argue that her thinking necessarily rests on that clause. …

Telescoping And Collectivizing Religious Free Exercise Rights, Henry L. Chambers Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

If courts are willing to expand religious liberty so that people may be allowed to choose-on the basis of their own religious beliefs-whether certain laws will apply to non-religious entities they create, those courts should take that step very carefully. This Paper explores the issue and pro- ceeds as follows. Part I discusses three recent Supreme Court cases that il- luminate the telescoping and the collectivization of free exercise rights. Part II considers problems that accompany telescoping and collectivizing free exercise rights. Part III suggests how courts should critically evaluate the telescoping and collectivizing of free exercise rights. This Paper …

Land Use Law Update: The 2015 Mid-Year Roundup, Sarah Adams-Schoen

Scholarly Works

This update summarizes New York cases related to land use and zoning that were decided in the first half of 2015.

The Right To Enforce: Why Rluipa's Land Use Provisions Is A Constitutional Federal Enforcement Power, Qasim Rashid

Law Student Publications

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) superseded the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional in its application to states in 1997. A two-pronged law, RLUIPA protects prisoners from unjust impositions to their freedom of worship and also ensures religious institutions may use their property for legitimate worship purposes without burdensome zoning law restrictions. This paper focuses specifically on the latter prong and analyzes RLUIPA in light of the growing Islamophobia in America during the previous twenty-four months. For example, the United States Department of Justice reports “of the eighteen RLUIPA matters involving …

Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are Free: Legal, Administrative, And Social Issues Raised By Passover Celebrations In Prison, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

"Once we were slaves, now we are free" is a central line from the Jewish Passover Seder, a ritual meal in which participants retell the story of liberation from Pharaoh's oppression. In prison, many Jewish inmates request access to a Seder and to kosher-for-Passover food for the eight-day holiday. Prisoners' requests to celebrate Passover provide a rich example for exploring the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA) and raise a host of tough questions regarding cost, safety, equal treatment of prisoners, and establishment of religion. Because kosher-for-Passover meals are more expensive and generally of higher quality than regular …

Institutional Free Exercise And Religious Land Use, John Infranca

Suffolk University Law School Faculty Works

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. declared that the First Amendment “gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.” This recognition of institutional free exercise rights has important implications for religious land uses. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) protects religious landowners from the imposition, through a land use regulation, of a substantial burden on religious exercise. Most RLUIPA claims are brought by the religious institution that owns property subject to a regulation. Nonetheless, courts and commentators evaluate these claims by applying a standard derived from cases involving …

The Effect Of Rluipa's Land Use Provisions On Local Government, Alan C. Weinstein

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In the absence of perfect information about how RLUIPA has affected local governments, this article argues that the courts have adopted a pragmatic approach to maneuvering in the difficult terrain that RLUIPA occupies: combining appropriate judicial deference to a legislature that enacts a neutral law of general applicability with the heightened judicial scrutiny that becomes appropriate when that same law is applied to a specific zoning approval, a circumstance that frequently allows for subjectivity, and thus the potential for discrimination or arbitrariness against religious uses, in the approval process. I conclude that: (1) until proven otherwise, the costs RLUIPA undoubtedly …

A Non-Fatal Collision: Interpreting Rluipa Where Religious Land Uses And Community Interests Meet, Adam J. Macleod

Faculty Articles

Imagine a large church located in a multi-family residential zoning district, where commercial uses are not permitted and religious uses are permitted by special use permit. The church applies for a special use permit to open a coffee shop, which would operate throughout the week during normal business hours and would supplement and support the church's other ministries. At the hearing on the permit application, many neighbors object. They fear increased traffic, visual blight, and safety hazards for their children. The city denies the permit. The church files an action against the city, alleging that the city has substantially burdened …

Condemning Religion: Rluipa And The Politics Of Eminent Domain, Christopher Serkin, Nelson Tebbe

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Should religious landowners enjoy special protection from eminent domain? A recent federal statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), compels courts to apply a compelling interest test to zoning and landmarking regulations that substantially burden religiously owned property. That provision has been controversial in itself, but today a new cutting-edge issue is emerging: whether the Act’s extraordinary protection should extend to condemnation as well. The matter has taken on added significance in the wake of Kelo, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed its expansive view of the eminent domain power. In this Article, we argue that RLUIPA should …

God And The Land: A Holy War Between Religious Exercise And Community Planning And Development, Patricia E. Salkin, Amy Lavine

Scholarly Works

This article is a brief introduction to The Albany Government Law Review symposium on God and the Land. This piece sets forth a brief history of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) setting the backdrop for the controversy that has surrounded the Act and its impact on religious entities and municipalities. Since the enactment of RLUIPA, the floodgates have burst open with litigation in attempts to clarify many ambiguities in the statute. The remainder of the piece provides a sneak preview of the articles contained in The Albany Government Law Review by Professors Angela Carmella, Marci Hamilton, …

The Genesis Of Rluipa And Federalism: Evaluating The Creation Of A Federal Statutory Right And Its Impact On Local Government, Patricia E. Salkin, Amy Lavine

Scholarly Works

In 2000, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), designed to provide protection from discrimination for the exercise of religion for incarcerated individuals and for those in need of various municipal permits or approvals in order to exercise their religion. With seven years of experience in the courts, this article examines the impact of RLUIPA on local governments across the country through an analysis of how the courts have been interpreting and applying statutory ambiguities and creating inconsistent doctrine in an effort to define terms and implement RLUIPA's protections. Whether an appropriate …

Old Ground And New Directions At Sacred Sites On The Western Landscape, Kristen A. Carpenter

Publications

The federal public lands contain places with both religious and secular value for American people. American Indians, in particular, hold certain natural features to be sacred, and visit them for ceremonies and worship. Simultaneously, non-Indians use the same places for economic, recreation, and many other purposes - and conflicts arise between these groups. In the past twenty years, a body of constitutional jurisprudence has developed to address questions of religious freedoms and public access rights on these lands that are owned and managed by the federal government. This article outlines the relevant First Amendment framework as well as recent statutes …

Beyond Worship: The Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act Of 2000 And Religious Institutions' Auxiliary Uses, Sara C. Bronin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Religious institutions have long offered their congregants services that go beyond worship. Particularly in the last two decades, they have begun expanding far beyond their traditional offerings to a wider and more diverse array of auxiliary uses - non-worship uses that are affiliated with a religious institution. (One type of large religious institution, the megachurch, is fast gaining members by offering schools, community centers, dining facilities, even movie theaters and gymnasiums.) Government has long granted special protections to the worship uses of religious institutions. A recent federal law - the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) …

U.S. Supreme Court’S 2004 Term Includes Significant Land Use Decisions With A Trilogy Of Takings Cases, Patricia E. Salkin

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.