You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 44.195.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Blablubbs‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 09:46, 11 January 2025.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪AntiCompositeNumber‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: Visit the FAQ if you are affected .
- Start of block: 13:55, 18 August 2022
- Expiry of block: 13:55, 18 January 2025
Your current IP address is 44.195.68.6. The blocked range is 44.195.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((Short description|United States federal law))
((Use mdy dates|date=October 2011))
((More citations needed|date=February 2011))
((Infobox U.S. legislation
| shorttitle = Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
| othershorttitles = 
| longtitle = An Act to protect religious liberty, and for other purposes.
| colloquialacronym = RLUIPA
| nickname = Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
| enacted by = 106th
| effective date = September 22, 2000
| public law url = https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-114/pdf/STATUTE-114-Pg803.pdf
| cite public law = 106-274
| cite statutes at large = ((usstat|114|803))
| acts amended = 
| acts repealed = 
| title amended = [[Title 42 of the United States Code|42 U.S.C.: Public Health and Social Welfare]]
| sections created = ((Usc-title-chap|42|21c)) § 2000cc et seq.
| sections amended = 
| leghisturl = 
| introducedin = Senate
| introducedbill = ((USBill|106|S.|2869))
| introducedby = [[Orrin Hatch]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]]–[[Utah|UT]])
| introduceddate = July 13, 2000
| committees = 
| passedbody1 = Senate
| passeddate1 = July 27, 2000
| passedvote1 = Passed unanimous consent
| passedbody2 = House
| passedas2 = <!-- used if the second body changes the name of the legislation -->
| passeddate2 = July 27, 2000
| passedvote2 = Passed without objection
| conferencedate = 
| passedbody3 = 
| passeddate3 = 
| passedvote3 = 
| agreedbody3 = <!-- used when the other body agrees without going into committee -->
| agreeddate3 = <!-- used when the other body agrees without going into committee -->
| agreedvote3 = <!-- used when the other body agrees without going into committee -->
| agreedbody4 = <!-- used if agreedbody3 further amends legislation -->
| agreeddate4 = <!-- used if agreedbody3 further amends legislation -->
| agreedvote4 = <!-- used if agreedbody3 further amends legislation -->
| passedbody4 = 
| passeddate4 = 
| passedvote4 = 
| signedpresident = [[Bill Clinton]]
| signeddate = September 22, 2000
| unsignedpresident = <!-- used when passed without presidential signing -->
| unsigneddate = <!-- used when passed without presidential signing -->
| vetoedpresident = <!-- used when passed by overriding presidential veto -->
| vetoeddate = <!-- used when passed by overriding presidential veto -->
| overriddenbody1 = <!-- used when passed by overriding presidential veto -->
| overriddendate1 = <!-- used when passed by overriding presidential veto -->
| overriddenvote1 = <!-- used when passed by overriding presidential veto -->
| overriddenbody2 = <!-- used when passed by overriding presidential veto -->
| overriddendate2 = <!-- used when passed by overriding presidential veto -->
| overriddenvote2 = <!-- used when passed by overriding presidential veto -->
| amendments = 
| SCOTUS cases = ((ubl|''[[Cutter v. Wilkinson]]'', ((ussc|544|709|2005))|''[[Sossamon v. Texas]]'', ((ussc|563|277|2011))|''[[Holt v. Hobbs]]'', ((ussc|574|352|2015))|''[[Ramirez v. Collier]]'', ((ussc|docket=21-5592|volume=595|date=2022))))
))
The '''Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act''' ('''RLUIPA'''), ((USPL|106|274)), codified as ((USC|42|2000cc)) [[et seq]].,  is a [[United States federal law]] that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives [[Church body|churches]] and other religious institutions a way to avoid [[zoning law]] restrictions on their property use. It also defines the term "religious exercise" to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief."<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. p 1].</ref> RLUIPA was enacted by the [[United States Congress]] in 2000 to correct the problems of the [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]] (RFRA) of 1993.  The act was passed in both the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] and the [[United States Senate|Senate]] by [[unanimous consent]] in [[voice vote]]s, meaning that no objection was raised to its passage, so no written vote was taken. The S. 2869 [[Bill (law)|legislation]] was enacted into law by the [[Presidency of Bill Clinton|42nd President of the United States]] Bill Clinton on September 22, 2000.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=1305 |title=William J. Clinton: "Statement on Signing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000," September 22, 2000 |author1=Peters, Gerhard |author2=Woolley, John T |work=The American Presidency Project |publisher=University of California - Santa Barbara))</ref>

==Previous law==
In 1997, the [[United States Supreme Court]] held the RFRA to be unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments, in ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'', [[Case citation|521 U.S. 507]]. Unlike the RFRA, which required religious accommodation in virtually all spheres of life, RLUIPA only applies to prisoner and land use cases.<ref>((cite journal|title=Religious Land Use in the Federal Courts Under RLUIPA|journal=[[Harvard Law Review]]|date=2007|volume=120|page=2178|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/religious_land_use.pdf|accessdate=20 October 2017))</ref>

In [[Employment Division v. Smith|''Employment Div. Dep't of Human Resources v. Smith'']], 494 U.S. 872, 883–85 (1990), the Supreme Court held that a substantial burden on religious exercise was subject to very strict scrutiny where the law "lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct." It was not a case permitting exceptions for freedom of religion when generally applicable health and welfare regulations were in question, and it should be remembered that Smith lost this case (involving a denial of unemployment benefits where the litigant had used illegal drugs in a religious ceremony).  In line with the scrutiny regime established in ''[[West Coast Hotel v. Parrish]]'' in 1937, the Court ruled that unless the law is not one of general applicability, regardless of specific circumstance, government may act if policy is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, even if the act imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion.

==Prisoners==
In the 2005 case of ''[[Cutter v. Wilkinson]]'', 544 U.S. 709 (2005), five prisoners in [[Ohio]] – including a [[Wicca]]n, a [[Satanism|Satanist]], and a member of a racist, purportedly Christian, sect – successfully sought to apply the protections of the act to their religious practices.  The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit]] had held that RLUIPA violated the [[Establishment Clause]] by impermissibly advancing religion by bestowing benefits to religious prisoners that were unavailable to non-religious prisoners. The [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] disagreed, unanimously holding that RLUIPA was a permissible accommodation of religion justified by the fact that the government itself had severely burdened the prisoners' religious rights through the act of incarceration. A concurring opinion by [[Clarence Thomas|Justice Thomas]] noted that the states could escape the restrictions of RLUIPA simply by refusing federal funds for state prisons.  ''Cutter v. Wilkinson'' only concerns the prisoner portion of RLUIPA. The court explicitly declined to extend the rule to land use cases.((citation needed|date=September 2022))

In 2008, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report entitled "Enforcing Religious Freedom in Prison."<ref>U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, [https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/STAT2008ERFIP.pdf Enforcing Religious Freedom in Prison] (2008).  See also the separate Statement of Commissioner Heriot, which is appended to the report and [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3105680 also available separately].</ref>

In a unanimous opinion issued March 15, 2011, that reverses the three-judge panel's May 2010 ruling, a limited ''[[en banc]]'' panel of 11 judges of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] held that an [[Orange County, California|Orange County]] courthouse lockup is an "institution" under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, meaning a Muslim woman who sued after being forced to remove her headscarf in front of strange men is entitled to the act's protections. The case is ''Khatib v. County of Orange'', 08-56423.<ref>((cite web|url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/03/15/08-56423.pdf |title=Khatib v. County of Orange|date=March 15, 2011|publisher=Ca9.uscourts.gov|accessdate=2013-10-24))</ref><ref>((cite web|author= |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/oc-jailers-violated-muslims-right-to-wear-head-scarf-court-rules.html |title=O.C. jailers violated Muslim's right to wear head scarf, court rules - latimes.com |publisher=Latimesblogs.latimes.com |date=2011-03-15 |accessdate=2013-10-24))</ref>  The lawsuit started as a result of court bailiffs ordering the woman to remove her headscarf while she was temporarily being held inside the courthouse lock up while a county court judge was deciding whether or not to revoke her misdemeanor probation (she was released that same day after the judge decided not to).  The District Court had dismissed the case, with said dismissal being upheld by the three-judge appellate panel.<ref>[http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/resource.org/fed_reporter/NEWcircs/cir9/08-56423_cir9.html]  ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222131232/http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/resource.org/fed_reporter/NEWcircs/cir9/08-56423_cir9.html|date=December 22, 2015))</ref>  The case has now been reversed and sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.  It is the first time that a temporary holding facility (like a courthouse lockup) has been deemed to be an "institution" under the Act.  The law, passed by Congress in 2000, prohibits the government from imposing a "substantial burden" on prisoners' religious practices unless officials can show a compelling need for the restrictions.  The Obama administration joined Khatib in arguing that the law applied to courthouse holding cells.((citation needed|date=September 2022))

In 2022, Chief Judge [[Diane S. Sykes]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]] invoked RLUIPA in ruling that the rights of a Muslim prisoner at [[Green Bay Correctional Institution]] were unlawfully violated when he was strip searched by a transgender male guard.<ref>((cite news | last = Vielmetti | first = Bruce | date = September 20, 2022 | title =  Court: Prison must exempt Muslim inmate from strip search by transgender guards | url = https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/09/20/wisconsin-court-says-muslim-inmate-exempt-searches-female-transgender-guards/8037578001/ | work = Milwaukee Journal Sentinel))</ref>

==Zoning and land use==
((main|RLUIPA Equal Terms Provision Circuit Split))
((original research|section|date=November 2017))
In religious land use disputes, RLUIPA's general rule is the most commonly cited and challenged section. It provides:

((Ordered list
|General rule. 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 can demonstrate that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly or institution
((Ordered list|list-style-type=lower-alpha
|is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
|is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
))
|Scope of Application. This subsection applies in any case in which—
((Ordered list|list-style-type=lower-alpha
|the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
|the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
|the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.
))
))

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a).

During these disputes, the correct interpretation of the term "land use regulation" is almost always an issue. The statute defines "land use regulation" as "a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant's use or development of land (including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(5).

=== RLUIPA and planning debate ===
The passage of RLUIPA gave rise to increasing number of legal cases whereby (local) planning authorities are sued for violating the free exercise of religion.<ref>((Cite web|url=http://religionclause.blogspot.com/|title=Religion Clause|website=religionclause.blogspot.com|access-date=2018-11-15))</ref> RLUIPA, therefore, generated heated discussions within professional planning communities.<ref>((Cite journal|last=Manouchehrifar|first=Babak|date=2018-11-08|title=Is Planning 'Secular'? Rethinking Religion, Secularism, and Planning|journal=Planning Theory & Practice|volume=19|issue=5|language=en|pages=653–677|doi=10.1080/14649357.2018.1540722|s2cid=149473348|issn=1464-9357))</ref><ref>((Cite journal|last=Hamilton|first=Marci A.|date=April 2004|title=RLUIPA is Unfair, Unwise, and Unconstitutional|journal=Planning & Environmental Law|language=en|volume=56|issue=4|pages=8–13|doi=10.1080/15480755.2004.10394249|s2cid=154566651|issn=1548-0755))</ref><ref>((Cite journal|last=Picarello|first=Anthony R.|date=April 2004|title=RLUIPA is Constitutional|journal=Planning & Environmental Law|language=en|volume=56|issue=4|pages=3–7|doi=10.1080/15480755.2004.10394248|s2cid=154456555|issn=1548-0755))</ref><ref>((Cite journal|date=2021-05-19|title=Rethinking Religion and Secularism in Urban Planning|journal=Planning Theory & Practice|pages=269–317|doi=10.1080/14649357.2021.1908078|issn=1464-9357|doi-access=free|last1=Manouchehrifar|first1=Babak|last2=Forester|first2=John|volume=22|issue=2))</ref> While its advocates (mostly in Congress) argued that this federal statute prevents urban planners from substantially burdening religious practice, its critics (many of whom were planning practitioners) maintained that RLUIPA, in fact, substantially burdens planning practice itself. The [[American Planning Association]] (APA), for example, opposed RLUIPA (and its predecessor, [[RFRA]]) from the outset, arguing that these statutes effectively change “the playing field in favor of religious institutions” and put local governments “in an untenable position.”<ref>((Cite journal|last=Lucero|first=Lora|date=April 2004|title=Where Does APA Stand on RLUIPA?|journal=Planning & Environmental Law|language=en|volume=56|issue=4|pages=14|doi=10.1080/15480755.2004.10394250|s2cid=143689249|issn=1548-0755))</ref> In 2005, however, the Supreme Court ruled, in [[Cutter v. Wilkinson]], that RLUIPA is constitutional, at least as it applies to prisons. Since the mid-2000s, therefore, the APA has been offering resources to local governments and practicing planners as to how to effectively navigate the renewed legal-religious landscape of the planning field.<ref>((Cite journal|last=Manouchehrifar|first=Babak|date=2018-11-08|title=Is Planning 'Secular'? Rethinking Religion, Secularism, and Planning|journal=Planning Theory & Practice|volume=19|issue=5|language=en|pages=653–677|doi=10.1080/14649357.2018.1540722|s2cid=149473348|issn=1464-9357))</ref>

===Is eminent domain a land use regulation under RLUIPA?===

Litigation focusing on the term "land use regulation" occasionally asks courts to decide whether RLUIPA applies to eminent domain proceedings. Generally, courts deciding this question have held that RLUIPA does not apply to eminent domain because it is not a "zoning or landmarking law."<ref>((cite court |litigants=St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago |vol=502 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=616 |pinpoint= |court=7th Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1236389/st-johns-united-church-of-christ-v-chicago/ |accessdate=2017-10-11 |quote=))</ref><ref>((cite court |litigants=Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton |vol=405 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=250 |pinpoint= |court=W.D.N.Y. |date=2005 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2446699/faith-temple-church-v-town-of-brighton/ |accessdate=2017-10-11 |quote=))</ref><ref>((cite court |litigants=City and County of Honolulu v. Sherman |vol=129 |reporter=P.3d |opinion=542 |pinpoint= |court=Haw. |date=2006 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2633294/city-and-county-of-honolulu-v-sherman/ |accessdate=2017-10-11 |quote=))</ref> Instead, these courts have held that zoning and eminent domain are two completely different and unrelated concepts. The main argument to support this conclusion is that zoning and eminent domain are derived from two separate sources of power. The zoning power is derived from the state's police power, while the eminent domain power is derived from the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution's Fifth Amendment.  However, at least one court has applied the RLUIPA in an eminent-domain case because the authority to condemn the property came from the city's zoning scheme.<ref>((cite court |litigants=Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Redevelopment Agency |vol=218 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=1203 |pinpoint= |court=C.D. Cal. |date=2002 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2360328/cottonwood-christian-center-v-cypress-redev-ag/ |accessdate=2017-10-11 |quote=))</ref> A court may be more inclined to find that eminent domain falls within the scope of RLUIPA if it was authorized by a zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan.

To date, no cases questioning RLUIPA's application to eminent domain have reached the Supreme Court. A 2003 Seventh Circuit case, ''St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago'', was appealed to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], but the court declined to hear the appeal.  A refusal to hear means that the Supreme Court did not consider the Seventh Circuit Court's decision to be obviously wrong on the legal merits, or that the facts of the particular case could have broader constitutional implications.  The Supreme Court generally has a substantial workload and tends to refuse appeals which have already received due process in lower courts.  A refusal to hear a case does not preclude hearing a similar case in the future, if the court feels that further judicial review is needed.

====Cases interpreting RLUIPA's application to eminent domain====

=====''St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago''=====

The controversy in this case centered around the expansion of Chicago's [[O'Hare International Airport]].<ref>((cite court |litigants=St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago |vol=502 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=616 |pinpoint=618 |court=7th Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1236389/st-johns-united-church-of-christ-v-chicago/ |accessdate=2017-10-11 |quote=))</ref> In order to expand this airport, the City needed to acquire ((convert|433|acre|ha|abbr=off)) of adjacent land through condemnation. Among the properties to be condemned were two cemeteries, one owned by St. John's United Church of Christ, and the other by Rest Haven Cemetery Association. In their amended complaint, St. John's and Rest Haven alleged that condemnation of their cemeteries was a violation of RLUIPA. After a revision to the O'Hare Modernization Project, Rest Haven's cemetery was no longer faced with condemnation and this church dropped out of the lawsuit.

St. John's Church argued that the condemnation action substantially burdened its freedom of religious practice because "[A] major tenet of its religious beliefs [was] that the remains of those buried at the [St. John's] St. Johannes Cemetery must not be disturbed until God raises these remains on the '[[Last Judgment|Day of Resurrection]]'." This Court had to decide whether eminent domain fit within RLUIPA's definition of a "land use regulation." The Court held that eminent domain was not a "land use regulation." The Court cited the case of ''Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton'' to support its position that "zoning and eminent domain are 'two distinct concepts' that involve land in 'very different ways'."

St. John's Church also argued that the O'Hare Modernization Act, which authorized the condemnations, was a zoning law, and it invoked the protection of RLUIPA's in condemnation cases derived from the Act.<ref>((cite court |litigants=St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago |vol=502 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=616 |pinpoint=641 |court=7th Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1236389/st-johns-united-church-of-christ-v-chicago/ |accessdate=2017-10-11 |quote=))</ref> The Court rejected this argument and suggested that Congress would have included eminent domain in the language of RLUIPA if it had intended for the statute to cover eminent domain. After considering the case, the Seventh Circuit Court denied St. John's motion for a preliminary injunction.

=====''Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Redevelopment Agency''=====

Cottonwood Christian Center filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the City of Cypress from taking its land through eminent domain.<ref>((cite court |litigants=Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Redevelopment Agency |vol=218 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=1203 |pinpoint=1209 |court=C.D. Cal. |date=2002 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2360328/cottonwood-christian-center-v-cypress-redev-ag/ |accessdate=2017-10-11 |quote=))</ref> The controversy in this case arose when Cottonwood purchased land in Cypress and planned to build a large church and other church-related buildings on an ((convert|18|acre|ha|adj=on|abbr=off)) plot of land.  Since the church was to be built in an area that only allowed churches if they received a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from Cypress, Cottonwood applied for a CUP.  Cypress denied Cottonwood's application.  Instead, the city planned to build a shopping mall that included Cottonwood's land. They later scaled the mall down to a Costco store that was solely on Cottonwood's ((convert|18|acre|ha|adj=on|abbr=off)) plot. Cypress offered to purchase the land and Cottonwood did not accept. As a result, Cypress initiated eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property under a zoning ordinance called the Los Alamitos Race Track and Golf Course Redevelopment Project (LART Plan).  The LART Plan authorized the use of eminent domain as a way to redevelop the area where Cottonwood's land was located. Cottonwood argued that because the eminent domain proceedings stemmed from the LART Plan zoning scheme, they violated RLUIPA.

The Court granted a preliminary injunction against Cypress.  The Court held that RLUIPA applied in this case, and therefore, the Court used a strict scrutiny standard of review.  In its analysis, the Court found that it took Cottonwood five years to identify a location and negotiate for the land. After all the church had invested, the City's actions placed a substantial burden on the churches' religious exercise without presenting a compelling government interest for doing so.

=====''Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton''=====

Faith Temple Church brought an action to enjoin the Town of Brighton from condemning its property through eminent domain.<ref>((cite court |litigants=Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton |vol=405 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=250 |pinpoint=251 |court=W.D.N.Y. |date=2005 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2446699/faith-temple-church-v-town-of-brighton/ |accessdate=2017-10-11 |quote=))</ref>  Faith Temple was a church that had outgrown its needs at its original location.  In order to accommodate its larger congregation, it negotiated and eventually purchased a ((convert|66|acre|ha|adj=on|abbr=off)) parcel of land in January 2004.  In its Comprehensive Plan for 2000, the Town had included a recommendation that this parcel be acquired.  The purpose of the acquisition was to expand an adjacent town-owned park.  After the church purchased the land, the Town initiated condemnation proceedings in the spring of 2004.

RLUIPA's application to eminent domain was at issue in this case because Faith Temple argued that the recommendation in the Town's Comprehensive Plan was essentially a "zoning law."  Further, if the recommendation was a zoning law, then Faith Temple argued that condemnation was "the application of a zoning law" and was a violation of RLUIPA.

The Court held that RLUIPA was inapplicable to this case.  The judge found that the connection between zoning and eminent domain in this case was "too attenuated to constitute the application of a zoning law." Therefore, summary judgment was granted in favor of the Town, denying injunctive relief.

=====''City and County of Honolulu v. Sherman''=====

This case was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Hawaii which stemmed from a Honolulu city and county ordinance.<ref>((cite court |litigants=City and County of Honolulu v. Sherman |vol=129 |reporter=P.3d |opinion=542 |pinpoint=545 |court=Haw. |date=2006 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2633294/city-and-county-of-honolulu-v-sherman/ |accessdate=2017-10-11 |quote=))</ref> The ordinance gave the city and county eminent domain authority in "[A]ctions for [ ] lease-to-fee conversion[s] of certain leased-fee interests."  Using the authority granted by the ordinance, the City of Honolulu initiated condemnation proceedings to obtain thirty-four leasehold condominium units in the Admiral Thomas condominium complex. The purpose behind the condemnation proceedings was to "conver[t] the leasehold [interests] to fee simple [interests] on behalf of forty-seven owner-occupant[s]" (the lessees).

The plaintiff-appellee in the action was the City and the defendant-appellant was First United Methodist Church as the fee owner of the Admiral Thomas condominium complex.  First United counterclaimed the condemnation proceedings and cited a violation of RLUIPA.  Using the ''Cottonwood'' case for support, First United argued that eminent domain is a "land use regulation" and that RLUIPA should be a defense to the City's action.  While First United argued that its exercise of religion had been burdened by the eminent domain proceedings, the City argued that First United had not proven this and that "the Church's exercise of religion [was] unaffected."

Affirming the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the City, the Court held that RLUIPA could not be used as a defense to eminent domain proceedings authorized under the ordinance.  The Court supported this holding by stating that eminent domain and zoning are different concepts and that it would not "assume that Congress simply overlooked [eminent domain] when drafting RLUIPA." Since Congress did not include the term "eminent domain" in the RLUIPA statute, the Court decided that Congress did not want it to be included. Therefore, the Court did not apply RLUIPA in this case.

====Law review articles about RLUIPA's application to eminent domain====

*Kris Banvard, Comment, ''Exercise in Frustration? A New Attempt By Congress to Restore Strict Scrutiny to Governmental Burdens on Religious Practice'', 31 Cap. U. L. Rev. 279 (2003).
*Shelley Ross Saxer, ''Eminent Domain Actions Targeting First Amendment Land Uses'', 69 Missouri L. Rev. 653 (2004).
*Stephen A. Haller, Comment, ''On Sacred Ground: Exploring Congress's Attempts to Rein in Discriminatory State Zoning Practices'', 33 Sw. U. L. Rev. 285 (2004).
*Aaron Keesler, Note, ''Religious Land-Use and the Fourteenth Amendment's Enforcement Clause: How the FMLA Paved the Way to the RLUIPA's Constitutionality'', 3 Ave Maria L. Rev. 315 (2005).
*G. David Mathues, Note, ''Shadow of a Bulldozer?: RLUIPA and Eminent Domain After Kelo'', 81 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1653 (2006).
*Daniel P. Lennington, ''Thou Shalt Not Zone: The Overbroad Applications and Troubling Implications of RLUIPA's Land Use Provisions'', 29 Seattle U. L. Rev. 805 (2006).
*Matthew Baker, Comment, ''RLUIPA and Eminent Domain:  Probing the Boundaries of Religious Land Use Protection'', 2008 BYU L. Rev. 1213 (2008).
*Daniel N. Lerman, Note, ''Taking the Temple: Eminent Domain and the Limits of RLUIPA'', 96 Geo. L.J. 2057 (2008).
*Cristina Finetti, Comment, ''Limiting the Scope of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: Why RLUIPA Should Not Be Amended to Regulate Eminent Domain Actions Against Religious Property'', 38 Seton Hall L. Rev. 667 (2008).

==References==
((Reflist))

==External links==
*[http://www.RLUIPA.org RLUIPA.org Comprehensive Resource Site]
*[http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/rluipaexplain.php United States Department of Justice: Civil Rights Division, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section (provides a brief explanation of RLUIPA)]
*[http://www.becketfund.org The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty]
*[http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/township-open-space-plan-is-a-land-use-regulation-subject-to-rluipa/ Law of the Land – Township Open Space Plan is a Land Use Regulation Subject to RLUIPA (blog)]
*[http://www.preserveramapo.org/ Preserve Ramapo – Impact of RLUIPA in Ramapo updated daily]
*[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/march/bricksmoratoriums.html Bricks and Moratoriums: Zoning Out Churches (RLUIPA's affect in lawsuit Rios de Agua Viva Church and Burbank, Illinois concerning churches banned from buildings in commercial areas)]
*[http://www.mauckbaker.com/Religious-Zoning-Chicago-Attorneys How RLUIPA Zoning Affects Churches and Ministries: Basics Of Religious Zoning by Amy Parrish, Esq. of Mauck & Baker Law Firm (blog)]

((US1stAmendment Free Exercise Clause Supreme Court case law))
((authority control))

((DEFAULTSORT:Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act))
[[Category:Acts of the 106th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Zoning in the United States]]
[[Category:2000 in religion]]
[[Category:United States legislation about religion]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (edit)
Template:Abbr (view source) (protected)
Template:Abbrlink (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Authority control (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Both (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Bulleted list (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation needed (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite court (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Convert (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:If (view source) (protected)
Template:If all (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:If empty (view source) (protected)
Template:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox U.S. legislation (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Nobold (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Nobold/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:Ordered list (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ordinal (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Original research (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:P1 (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:P2 (view source) (protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Plainlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Replace (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Sp (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Str ≠ len (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Template other (view source) (protected)
Template:Trim (view source) (protected)
Template:US1stAmendment Free Exercise Clause Supreme Court case law (edit)
Template:USBill (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:USC (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:USPL (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:USStat (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Ubl (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Unbulleted list (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:UnitedStatesCode (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Usc-title-chap (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Usc-title-chap/core (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Use mdy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ussc (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Usstat (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Wrap (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Authority control (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Authority control/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Convert (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Convert/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Convert/text (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:EditAtWikidata (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:If empty (view source) (protected)
Module:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:List (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Ordinal (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:TableTools (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Webarchive/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act"