The Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA) and
Case Law
December 2, 2016
Co-sponsored by:
The NJ State League of Municipalities
and
The NJ Association of Planning and Zoning Administrators
Presenters:
PROGRAM TOPICS
PART I
1. Putting RLUIPA In Context
2. Discussion Of RLUIPA’s
Essential Elements
PART II
3. Case Law Interpretation of RLUIPA
PART III
4. Procedural and Miscellaneous Issues
5. Matters Of Concern To Municipalities
PART I:
WHAT
IS
RLUIPA ?
The Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA),
42 US Code § 2000cc, is a federal
Civil Rights statute that was passed by
unanimous consent in both Houses of
Congress in July 2000 and signed into
law by President Clinton in September
2000.
 One
of the purposes of the Act is to
protect religious assemblies and
institutions from discrimination in
the land-use regulation process and
from unjustifiably burdensome landuse regulations.
 Another section of the statute, which
we will not discuss today, addresses
the rights of “religious exercise” for
institutionalized prisoners.
Putting RLUIPA In Context
From a Planner’s Perspective Typical voiced planning concerns:
 Congregation of out-of-towners
 Megachurch
 Starter house of worship in home
 “Accessory” activities
 Weekday / weeknight times
 Tax exemption
 Traffic, noise, lights, litter, etc.
Putting RLUIPA In Context
From an Attorney’s Perspective 1. Like all Civil Rights acts, RLUIPA has
its basis in Sections 1 and 5 of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
2. RLUIPA resulted from the holding
in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507
(1997) that States could not be subject
to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Two Essential Definitions
“Land use regulation” means a zoning or
landmarking law, or the application of such
law, that limits or restricts a claimant’s use
or development of land(including a
structure affixed to land)….
“Religious exercise” includes any exercise
of religion whether or not compelled by, or
central to, a system of religious belief.
RLUIPA Essential Elements
Subsection 2(a)
The “General Rule”, which establishes
the burden of persuasion for all
parties.
The General Rule requires that:
a plaintiff bears the
burden of showing
that a land use
regulation imposes
a substantial burden
on religious exercise.
Once plaintiff bears that burden,
the burden shifts to the defendant
to show:
(1) the land use regulation is in
furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest, and . . .
(2) the defendant has used the
least restrictive means to further
that compelling interest.
Four additional essential elements are found in
Subsection 2(b):
1)
2)
3)
4)
Land use regulation must treat religious
assembly on equal terms with nonreligious
assembly, and
Land use regulation may not discriminate
against assembly or institutions based on
religious or religious denomination,
Land use regulation may not totally exclude
religious assembly from a jurisdiction or
unreasonably limit such, and
Unreasonably limit religious assemblies
Finally
Actions may be commenced by:
1) Aggrieved individuals and
religious institutions.
2) The U.S. Department
of Justice.
Poll Question No. 1
15
PART II:
HOW HAS RLUIPA
BEEN INTERPRETED?
CAUTION!
IT IS STILL A
WORK IN PROGRESS.
The U.S. Supreme Court has
not interpreted RLUIPA.
There are currently significant
differences of opinion among
the U.S. Circuit Courts.
Rarely does an opinion
rely only upon RLUIPA.
New Jersey Courts have
dealt with RLUIPA in an
MLUL context.
It may depend
upon who the
plaintiff is –
especially if it
is a nonChristian
religion.
Review of Cases by Jurisdiction
1) Federal Cases (various circuits)
2) NJ Federal Cases
3) NJ Appellate Division Cases
4) Department of Justice Cases
5) Pending and recent unreported
cases
Federal Cases
(various circuits)
Grace United Methodist
Church v. Cheyenne
235 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (D. Wyoming 2002)
Held
Denial of day-care use in
residential zone a mere
inconvenience not a
substantial burden.
Murphy v. New Milford
223 F. Supp. 2d 377 (D. Conn. 2002)
Held
RLUIPA does not require
exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
Westchester Day School
v. Mamaroneck
2004 WL 2153860 (2nd Cir. 2004)
Held
Whether denial of right to
expand on Orthodox Jewish
school was a compelling
governmental interest was an
issue of fact.
San Jose Christian College
v. City of Morgan Hill
360 F. 3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2004)
Held
Denial of application to rezone a
hospital for educational use not
substantial burden.
Mintz v. Roman Catholic
Bishop of Springfield
424 F. Supp. 309 (D. Mass. 2006)
Held
1. Parish Center is a religious
exercise.
2. Bulk restrictions impose a
substantial burden.
3. Regulations were not the least
restrictive means.
Vision Church
v. Long Grove
468 F. 3d 975 (7th Cir. 2006)
Held
Limiting the size
of a house of
worship is not a
total exclusion.
World Outreach
v. Chicago
591 F. 3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009)
(2 consolidated cases)
First Case Held
Treating Plaintiffs SRO
differently from the YMCA
was a substantial burden.
World Outreach (cont’d)
Second Case Held
Denial of church expansion was
not a substantial burden because:
1. The church was well-funded.
2. The property it purchased
had other uses.
3. The church had a second site.
NJ Federal
and
State Cases
Lighthouse v. Long Branch
510 F. 3d 253 (3rd Cir. 2007),
cert. denied 171 L. Ed. 2d 787 (2008)
Held
1. General Rule does not apply to
RLUIPA equal terms provision.
2. Secular comparator must be
similarly situated regarding the
purpose of the regulation.
House of Fire v. Clifton
379 N.J.Super 526 (App. Div. 2005)
Held
1.Zone amendments did
not violate RLUIPA.
2.RLUIPA claims not ripe
until MLUL claims are
addressed.
Cases Brought by the
Department of Justice
U.S. v. Hollywood
(S.D. Fla. 2005)
Ordered
City enjoined for 5 years
where City Commissioner
causes the denial of a special
exception for a synagogue.
U.S. v. Waukegan
(N.D. Ill. 2008)
Ordered
City enjoined for 3 years where
several houses of worship were
denied in business zones
allowing nonreligious places of
assembly.
U.S. v. Walnut
Ordered
(S.D. Cal. 2010)
City enjoined for 3 years for
denial of conditional use permit
to Buddhist house of
worship, when for years
such permits were
Issued to other religions.
Unreported
and Pending
New Jersey Federal
Cases
Al Falah Center
v. Bridgewater
Civil Action No. 11-2397
Memorandum Opinion dated
September 30, 2013
Held
Plaintiff entitled to a Preliminary
Injunction where municipality rushed to
change zoning to eliminate a mosque as a
permitted use.
Yeshiva Gedola Na’OS Yaakov
v. Ocean Township
Civil Action No. 3:16-00096
Order dated August 25, 2016
Ordered
District Court reversed the Zoning
Board of Adjustment and approved a
religious boarding school for 80
students, with conditions.
Islamic Society of Basking Ridge
v. Township of Bernard
A pending federal action involving the
denial of a mosque.
On November 22, 2016 the Justice
Department filed an action alleging:
1. Religious discrimination.
2. Imposition of a substantial
burden on plaintiff.
Poll Question No. 2
41
PART III:
PROCEDURAL &
MISCELLANEOUS
ISSUES
MISCELLANEOUS
ISSUES
•
COUNSEL FEES
•
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIONS
MATTERS OF
CONCERN TO
MUNICIPALITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Drafting of Land Use Ordinances
Recodification
Drafting of Redevelopment Plans
Training Board and Governing
Body members
Poll Question No. 3
45
FINAL
COMMENTS
AND
QUESTIONS
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS
MAY BE SENT TO:
[email protected]
AND
[email protected]
PLEASE REFERENCE “RLUIPA”
IN YOUR SUBJECT LINE