The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

Transcription

1 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. 9/12/16

2 RLUIPA Congress found what it termed massive evidence of widespread discrimination against religious institutions by state and local officials in land-use decisions.

3 Minority religious groups disproportionately affected. Christian churches with minority memberships disproportionately affected. Zoning codes frequent exclude churches where they permit theaters, meeting halls, and other places where large groups of people assemble for secular purposes. 9/12/16

4 The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 The right to assemble for worship is at the very core of the free exercise of religion. Churches and synagogues cannot function without a physical space adequate to their needs and consistent with their theological requirements. Joint Statement of Senators Orin G. Hatch and Edward M. Kennedy, Senate Sponsors of RLUIPA

5 RLUIPA Signed into law September 22, 2000 Creates private right of action: a religious assembly or institution may file suit DOJ may file suit for injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce compliance 42 USC 2000cc-2(f)

6 Definition of Land Use Covers zoning and landmarking laws Does not include other laws touching on real property, such as fire codes, landlord/tenant law, or local civil rights laws.

7 Two Basic Provisions Section 2(a) Substantial Burdens Section 2(b) Discrimination and Exclusion

8 Substantial Burden Section 2(a): No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden... is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

9 What is a substantial burden under RLUIPA Section 2(a)? more than an inconvenience on religious exercise a group need not show that there is no other parcel of land on which it might build fact intensive looks at severity of burden on group s actual religious exercise

10 United States v. Suffern, NY (Consent decree reached June 16, 2010) 9/12/16 Shabbos House at Good Samaritan Hospital

11 United States v. Lomita (consent decree 2/1/13) 9/12/16 11

12 U.S. v. Lomita (cont.) 9/12/16 12

13 Substantial Burden Cases Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County v. Town of Litchfield, CT, 768 F.3d 183 (2 nd Cir. 2014) Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery County, MD, 706 F.3d 548 (4 th Cir. 2013) Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, NY, 504 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2007) Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, CA, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006) Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. City of New Berlin, Wisconsin, 396 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2005)

14 Equal Terms and Nondiscrimination Section 2(b)(1): No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(1)

15 Victory Family Life Church 9/12/16 15

16 City of St. Anthony Village, MN Current Worship Space 9/12/16 16

17 Office building with vacant lower level 9/12/16 17

18 Around the Corner 9/12/16 18

19 City of St. Anthony Village site of new building 9/12/16 19

20 Mayor with Imam of Islamic Center 9/12/16 20

21 Section 2(b)(2) Nondiscrimination Prohibits intentional religious discrimination, including discrimination based upon religious denomination. Does not require a comparison to another assembly or institution. Muslim cases particularly active right now 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(2)

22 United States v. Lilburn (Consent Decree 8/26/2011 9/12/16 22

23 ) 9/12/16 23

24

25

26

27

28 Unreasonable or Total Exclusion Section 2(b)(3) No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that (A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(3) Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of County Com'rs, CO, 613 F.3d 1229(10 th Cir. 2010)C Chabad of Nova, Inc. v. City of Cooper City,575 F. Supp.2d 1280 (S.D.Fl.2008).. 9/12/16 28

29 Constitutionality n Sossamon v. Texas, No (April 20, 2011) (no damages against states under RLUIPA prisoner section). n Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (RLUIPA prisoner section does not violate the Establishment Clause). n Lower courts have uniformly upheld RLUIPA s land use provisions. 9/12/16 29

30 Resources n DOJ Tenth Anniversary Report n DOJ Policy Guidance with Q and A s n Eric.Treene@USDOJ.gov 9/12/16 30