Archives: Substantial Burden

Subscribe to Substantial Burden RSS Feed

Coffee Shop Church’s Claims Survive Motion to Dismiss, City Amends Code to Permit Use

By Diana Neeves on Posted in Equal Terms, Nondiscrimination, Ripeness, Safe Harbor Provision, Substantial Burden
A federal court in Maryland has denied the City of Laurel, Maryland’s (“City”) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Redemption Community Church (“Church”). The Church filed suit last February, after the City issued a cease and desist order prohibiting the Church from offering religious services at the coffee shop it owns in the City’s … Continue Reading

Hand of Hope RLUIPA Claims Survive Summary Judgment

By Karla Chaffee on Posted in Comparator, Equal Terms, Substantial Burden
Hand of Hope Pregnancy Resource Center (“Hand of Hope”) is a non-profit  in Raleigh, North Carolina with the mission to “affirm the value of life from conception by compassionately sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ[.]”  It offers clients prayer, Bible study, and spiritual counseling, as well as free reproductive healthcare information, physician-quality pregnancy testing, limited … Continue Reading

Court Denies Summary Judgment in “Integral Yoga” RLUIPA Dispute in Hawaii

By Evan Seeman on Posted in Equal Terms, First Amendment, Least Restrictive Means, Nondiscrimination, Religious Exercise, Substantial Burden
Back in 2015, we first reported about a RLUIPA case pitting the County of Maui, Hawaii against practitioners of “Integral Yoga” (prior post available here).  Integral Yoga is a worldwide religious organization established in the U.S. in 1966 that believes “the goal and the birthright of all individuals is to realize the spiritual unity behind … Continue Reading

Rabbi Prohibited from Using Property as Short-Term Vacation Rental Under Savannah Ordinance

By Diana Neeves on Posted in Substantial Burden
A court in Chatham County, Georgia has granted the City of Savannah’s (“City”) request for a preliminary injunction temporarily prohibiting Rabbi Arnold Belzer and his wife from operating a “short-term vacation rental” and/or a “bed and breakfast homestay” at their home on Washington Avenue in Savannah (the “Property”). In doing so, the court rejected Rabbi … Continue Reading

Church Ministering To Homeless Secures Preliminary Injunction Against St. Paul, Minn. For Likely RLUIPA And Free Speech Violations

By Evan Seeman on Posted in First Amendment, Substantial Burden
A federal court in Minnesota has issued a preliminary injunction in favor of a local church ministering to the homeless, ruling that the church was likely to prevail on its RLUIPA substantial burden and First Amendment free speech claims.  The injunction will prevent St. Paul, Minnesota from enforcing 2 of the 14 conditions it imposed … Continue Reading

Church Sues Virginia County Over Religious Discrimination Claims

By Evan Seeman on Posted in Nondiscrimination, Substantial Burden
Last month, a church known as Love of Life Fellowship, Inc. (the “Church”) sued the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, alleging religious discrimination resulting from its desired acquisition and use of 38 acres at 500 Baptist Drive in Chester, Virginia (the “Property”).  The Church has used the Property for two years for religious worship and other … Continue Reading

Yee Haw! Cowboy Church’s Religious Rodeo Clears Some Hurdles

By Evan Seeman on Posted in Substantial Burden
Texas’ appellate court recently issued a decision involving the interplay between religious freedom and governmental police power, a “cowboy church,” and NIMBYism (Not-In-My-Back-Yard).  True to its name, Denton County Cowboy Church (the “Church”) began hosting weekly rodeo events in 2009 at its outdoor arena.  The arena is on the Cowboy Church’s 7-acre tract of land … Continue Reading

Federal Court Rejects Church’s Religious Land Use Claims Based on Government’s Legitimate Zoning Concerns

By Evan Seeman on Posted in Equal Terms, Substantial Burden
A federal court in Nevada has ruled that the denial of a church’s special use permit application to develop property with a house of worship did not violate RLUIPA’s substantial burden provision, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, or state law.  Significantly, this case demonstrates the bedrock principle that land use agencies may … Continue Reading

Rabbi Lacks Standing for some RLUIPA Claims, Says Federal Court

By Evan Seeman on Posted in Equal Terms, First Amendment, Nondiscrimination, Substantial Burden
A federal court in Maryland has found that a rabbi was without standing to bring claims under RLUIPA’s nondiscrimination and equal terms provisions, since those claims can be brought only by an “assembly” or “institution.”  While the court dismissed these claims, identical claims brought by a Jewish congregation – an assembly or institution under RLUIPA … Continue Reading

Maryland Federal Court – Church’s Alleged Substantial Burden was Self-Imposed

By Evan Seeman on Posted in Equal Terms, First Amendment, Nondiscrimination, Substantial Burden
A federal court in Maryland recently rejected a church’s RLUIPA and related constitutional claims, finding that the religious group’s claimed harm was self-created.  The case demonstrates the importance of due diligence efforts in connection with developing property in the context of a religious land use controversy. The religious group, Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, … Continue Reading

Pave it! RFRA Unlikely to Protect Sacred Burial Ground

By Karla Chaffee on Posted in Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Substantial Burden
A Federal Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court of Oregon recently issued findings and recommendations in Chief Wilder Slockish, et al. v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration, et al., concluding that federal highway construction work did not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise. Plaintiffs, including members of the Confederated Tribes of the … Continue Reading

Religious Land Use Controversy Brewing in Laurel, Maryland: Can a Church Worship in a Coffee Shop?

By Diana Neeves on Posted in Equal Terms, Nondiscrimination, Substantial Burden
Redemption Community Church (the “Church”) has filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Laurel, Maryland (the “City”), after the City issued a cease and desist order prohibiting the Church from offering religious services at the coffee shop it owns in the City’s community-village zoning district (the “CV Zone”). According to the complaint, the Church … Continue Reading

Church’s RLUIPA Claims Unripe and Moot, Says Federal Court

By Diana Neeves on Posted in Ripeness, Substantial Burden
A federal district court in Illinois has dismissed religious discrimination and related claims alleged by the Church of Our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ (“Church”) against the City of Markham, Illinois (“City”), in connection with the City’s denial of the Church’s application for a conditional use permit.  We previously posted about this case, Church of … Continue Reading

City of Bayonne, NJ to Pay $400,000 to Settle Claims Over Mosque Denial

By Evan Seeman on Posted in Settlement, Substantial Burden
The City of Bayonne, New Jersey has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed this past summer by Bayonne Muslims, asserting that the city discriminated against the Muslim group after denying variances needed to convert an abandoned warehouse to a mosque (read our previous post about the lawsuit here).  As part of the settlement, the city … Continue Reading

CAFO Stinks, but Not a Substantial Burden

By Karla Chaffee and Evan Seeman on Posted in Land Use Regulation, Substantial Burden
Do 1,400 cattle and 17.4 million gallons of cow waste in open-air lagoons, upwind and a half a mile from a religious youth summer camp, impose a substantial burden? As unpleasant as a concentrated animal feed operation (“CAFO”) may be, a neighboring religious organization cannot use RLUIPA as a shield to prevent its operation. We … Continue Reading

Church Alleges Religious Discrimination Over Baltimore County’s Conditions on Approval of Development Plan

By Diana Neeves on Posted in Substantial Burden
Hunt Valley Presbyterian Church (the “Church”) has sued Baltimore County, Maryland and the Board of Appeals of Baltimore County (together, “Baltimore County”), challenging Baltimore County’s conditional approval of the Church’s development plan, which sought to expand an existing house of worship.  This is the fourth congregation to bring RLUIPA claims against Baltimore County in the … Continue Reading

Mahwah Eruv Update

By Diana Neeves on Posted in Equal Terms, Substantial Burden
In an update to our previous post about an eruv dispute in New Jersey, the Mahwah Township Council has voted to withdraw two ordinances at the center of a religious discrimination lawsuit involving the construction of an eruv.  In September, we reported about Bergen Rockland Eruv Association, Inc.’s (“BREA”) lawsuit against the Township of Mahwah … Continue Reading

Kenyan Church Claims Baltimore County’s Land Use Regulations Impose Substantial Burden

By Diana Neeves on Posted in Nondiscrimination, Substantial Burden
Last week, Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. (the “Church”), a nondenominational Christian church in Baltimore County, Maryland, and the Church’s pastor, Reverend Lucy Ware, filed suit against Baltimore County, Maryland and the Board of Appeals of Baltimore County (together, “Baltimore County”), challenging Baltimore County’s denial of the Church’s petition to use Rev. Ware’s … Continue Reading

Department of Justice and Bensalem Township, PA Settle Lawsuit Over Mosque Denial

By Diana Neeves on Posted in Department of Justice, Equal Terms, Nondiscrimination, Substantial Burden, Unreasonable Limitation
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has reached an agreement with Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania (“Township”), resolving allegations that the Township violated each of RLUIPA’s provisions when it denied a use variance application submitted by the Bensalem Masjid, Inc. (“Masjid”) to build a mosque.  We previously posted about this case here. The DOJ lawsuit arose … Continue Reading

Municipality Prevails in Dispute Over Personal Chapel

By Evan Seeman on Posted in Equal Terms, Substantial Burden
The City of Brier, Washington (City) has prevailed over claims that it violated the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and other federal law in a dispute over a variance application to construct a personal Serbian Orthodox chapel. The case was brought by Vladan Milosavlejevic and his company (the Plaintiff), who sought to … Continue Reading

Eruv Dispute Prompts Claims of Religious Discrimination Against New Jersey Township

By Evan Seeman on Posted in Equal Terms, Substantial Burden
Last month, Bergen Rockland Eruv Association, Inc. (BREA) sued the Township of Mahwah, New Jersey regarding a dispute over the expansion of an eruv.  According to the complaint, “[a]n eruv, under Jewish law, is a largely invisible unbroken demarcation of an area … created by, among other things, using existing telephone or utility poles and … Continue Reading

Seventh Circuit Rules No Religious Discrimination Based On Sprinkler Requirement

By Evan Seeman on Posted in Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Substantial Burden
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the decision of the Northern District of Illinois, finding against a faith-based recovery home’s claims of religious discrimination and Fair Housing Act violations stemming from a fire code dispute over the installation of a sprinkler system.  Our prior post regarding the case is available … Continue Reading

Requiring Repair, Rather than Demolition, For Church’s Violations of Municipality’s Property Maintenance Code May Impose A Substantial Burden

By Diana Neeves on Posted in Equal Terms, Land Use Regulation, Substantial Burden
An Illinois appellate court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of RLUIPA claims asserted by the First United Methodist Church of West Dundee (the “Church”) against the Village of West Dundee, Illinois (the “Village”), finding that the Church sufficiently stated claims under the substantial burden and equal terms clauses. The case concerns a historic building located … Continue Reading
LexBlog