U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 21C— PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE IN LAND USE AND BY INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc

Protection of land use as religious exercise

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Substantial burdens(1) General ruleNo 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 on that person, assembly, or institution—(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.(2) Scope of applicationThis subsection applies in any case in which—(A) 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;(B) 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(C) 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.(b) Discrimination and exclusion(1) Equal terms

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.

(2) Nondiscrimination

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.

(3) Exclusions and limitsNo 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.(Pub. L. 106–274, § 2, Sept. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 803.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 106–274, § 1, Sept. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 803, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter and amending sections 1988, 2000bb–2 and 2000bb–3 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000’ ”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,747 cases (731 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007). · cites it 26× “The land-use section of the statute is further subdivided into two sections: Substantial Burdens, § 2000cc(a), and Discrimination and Exclusion, § 2000cc(b).”
Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 9× “h”), two synagogues serving the Surf- *1219 side-Bal Harbour-Bay Harbor Islands area of Miami-Dade County, Florida, appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Surfside (“Surfside”) on the synagogues’ claims challenging the Surfside Zoning…”
Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. 411 (2022). · cites it 7× “42 U. S. C. §2000cc–1(a). A plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that a prison policy “implicates his religious exercise.”
River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 16× “The court granted rehearing en banc to consider the proper standard for applying the equal-terms provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. That provision states that "no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation…”
Tree of Life Christian Sch. v. City of Upper Arlington, Ohio, 905 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 18× “§ 2000cc(a)(1) (“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 on…”
St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2007). · cites it 7× “John's claims that the City's attempt to condemn a cemetery located on church property violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §…”
Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cnty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm'n, 768 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014). · cites it 11× “§§ 1983 , 1985, and 1986; the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.; and Connecticut state law by denying the application.”
Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 450 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 9× “The full text of RLUIPA section 2, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, reads as follows: (a) Substantial burdens (1) 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…”
Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty., 915 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 5× “The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' suit for failure to state a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. , the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of…”
Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta, 654 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 12× “As pertinent to this appeal, Covenant and Anderson each allege multiple claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and against Covenant and Anderson on all…”
Livingston Christian Schs. v. Genoa Charter Twp., 858 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “LCS alleged that the denial of the application for a special-use permit violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc at seq. The Township moved for summary judgment in its favor, which the district court granted.”
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “Fifth, the Plaintiffs assert Congress expanded RFRA's definition of "exercise of religion" with the enactment of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. Navajo Br. at 29; see also Dissent at 1084-85.”
Show all 1,747 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(1) — 3 cases
Lyons v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr. (E.D. Tenn. 2019).
Mitchell v. Blount Co Det. Facility (E.D. Tenn. 2021).
Johnson v. Patterson (E.D. Tenn. 2025).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(A) — 1 case
Guru Nanak Sikh Soc'y of Yuba City v. Cnty. of Sutter (9th Cir. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(B) — 1 case
Elsinore Christian Ctr. v. City of Lake Elsinore, 270 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(C) — 5 cases
Guru Nanak Sikh Soc'y of Yuba City v. Cnty. of Sutter Casey Kroon Dennis Nelson Larry Munger Dan Silva, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006).
Guru Nanak Sikh Soc'y of Yuba City v. Cnty. of Sutter (9th Cir. 2006).
Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of (D. Minnesota 2020).
St. Timothy's Episcopal Church v. City of Brookings (D. Or. 2024).
Gethsemani Baptist Church v. San Luis, City of (D. Ariz. 2024).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(a) — 4 cases
Irshad Learning Ctr. v. Cnty. of DuPage, 804 F. Supp. 2d 697 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
Irshad Learning Ctr. v. Cnty. of DuPage, 937 F. Supp. 2d 910 (N.D. Ill. 2013).
Bernstein v. Vill. of Wesley Hills, 95 F. Supp. 3d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Am. Islamic Ctr. v. City of Des Plaines, 32 F. Supp. 3d 910 (N.D. Ill. 2014).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(b)(l) — 2 cases
Irshad Learning Ctr. v. Cnty. of DuPage, 937 F. Supp. 2d 910 (N.D. Ill. 2013).
Vision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 397 F. Supp. 2d 917 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) — 62 cases
Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo v. Michael Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005).
Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2007).
Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007). “The land-use section of the statute is further subdivided into two sections: Substantial Burdens, § 2000cc(a), and Discrimination and Exclusion, § 2000cc(b).”
Guatay Christian Fellowship v. Cnty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2011).
Elsinore Christian Ctr. v. City of Lake Elsinore, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1) — 153 cases
Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian, 258 F. App'x 729 (6th Cir. 2007).
Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 417 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
Cyril Korte v. HHS, 735 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2013).
Tree of Life Christian Sch. v. City of Upper Arlington, Ohio, 905 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2018). “§ 2000cc(a)(1) (“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 on…”
Thai Meditation Ass'n of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, 980 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 2020).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1)(A) — 10 cases
Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 417 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
Second Baptist Church v. Gilpin Twp., 118 F. App'x 615 (3d Cir. 2004).
Timberline Baptist Church v. Washington Cnty., 154 P.3d 759 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
Catholic Healthcare Int'l, Inc. v. Genoa Charter Twp., Mich. (6th Cir. 2023).
Honkala v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. (E.D. Pa. 2022).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1)(A)(B) — 1 case
Beechy v. Cent. Michigan Dist. Health Dept., 475 F. Supp. 2d 671 (E.D. Mich. 2007).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1)(B) — 2 cases
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kan. City in Kan. v. City of Mission Woods, 337 F. Supp. 3d 1122 (D. Kan. 2018).
Catholic Healthcare Int'l, Inc. v. Genoa Charter Twp., Mich. (6th Cir. 2023).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2) — 30 cases
Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004). “h”), two synagogues serving the Surf- *1219 side-Bal Harbour-Bay Harbor Islands area of Miami-Dade County, Florida, appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Surfside (“Surfside”) on the synagogues’ claims challenging the Surfside Zoning…”
Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011).
Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2007).
Sts. Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc., & John W. Demetropoulos v. City of New Berlin & Telesfore Wysocki, 396 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2005).
Ridley Park United Methodist Church v. Zoning Hearing Bd. Ridley Park Borough, 920 A.2d 953 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(A) — 15 cases
Vill. of Bensenville v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 457 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2010). “The court granted rehearing en banc to consider the proper standard for applying the equal-terms provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. That provision states that "no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation…”
Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cnty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm'n, 768 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014). “§§ 1983 , 1985, and 1986; the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.; and Connecticut state law by denying the application.”
Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery Cnty. Council, 706 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2013).
World Outreach Conf. Ctr. v. City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(B) — 16 cases
Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 734 F. Supp. 2d 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
Elsinore Christian Ctr. v. City of Lake Elsinore, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
World Outreach Conf. Ctr. v. City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009).
Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Evanston, Inc. v. City of Evanston, 250 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 417 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(C) — 43 cases
Joseph Konikov v. Orange Cnty., FL, 410 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2005).
Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cnty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm'n, 768 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014). “§§ 1983 , 1985, and 1986; the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.; and Connecticut state law by denying the application.”
Thai Meditation Ass'n of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, 980 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 2020).
River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2010). “The court granted rehearing en banc to consider the proper standard for applying the equal-terms provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. That provision states that "no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation…”
Int'l Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2011).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(a) — 1 case
Yoder v. Sugar Grove Area Sewer Auth. (W.D. Pa. 2022).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(b)(2) — 1 case
Irshad Learning Ctr. v. Cnty. of DuPage, 804 F. Supp. 2d 697 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(b)(l) — 1 case
Irshad Learning Ctr. v. Cnty. of DuPage, 804 F. Supp. 2d 697 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(c) — 2 cases
Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont (N.D. Cal. 2022).
Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont (N.D. Cal. 2022).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(A1) — 1 case
Stern v. Highland Lake Homeowners Ass'n (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(l) — 87 cases
Andon, LLC v. The City of Newport News, VA, 813 F.3d 510 (4th Cir. 2016).
Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 694 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2012).
Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery Cnty. Council, 706 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2013).
Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007). “The land-use section of the statute is further subdivided into two sections: Substantial Burdens, § 2000cc(a), and Discrimination and Exclusion, § 2000cc(b).”
Roman Catholic Bishop v. City of Springfield, 724 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2013).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(l)(A) — 6 cases
San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2004).
Roman Catholic Bishop v. City of Springfield, 724 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2013).
Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc. v. City of Sandy Springs, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (N.D. Ga. 2012).
Prater v. City of Burnside, 289 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2002).
Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (D. Wyo. 2002).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(l)(B) — 2 cases
Mintz v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, 424 F. Supp. 2d 309 (D. Mass. 2006).
Harbor Missionary Church Corp. v. City of San Buenaventura, 642 F. App'x 726 (9th Cir. 2016).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b) — 24 cases
Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004). “h”), two synagogues serving the Surf- *1219 side-Bal Harbour-Bay Harbor Islands area of Miami-Dade County, Florida, appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Surfside (“Surfside”) on the synagogues’ claims challenging the Surfside Zoning…”
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers, Christ Ctr., Christian Covenant Outreach Church v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2003).
Adhi Parasakthi Charitable, Med., Educ., & Cultural Soc'y of North Am. v. Twp. of West Pikeland, 721 F. Supp. 2d 361 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 694 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2012).
Mintz v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, 424 F. Supp. 2d 309 (D. Mass. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1) — 85 cases
Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007). “The land-use section of the statute is further subdivided into two sections: Substantial Burdens, § 2000cc(a), and Discrimination and Exclusion, § 2000cc(b).”
Tree of Life Christian Sch. v. City of Upper Arlington, Ohio, 905 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2018). “§ 2000cc(a)(1) (“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 on…”
River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2010). “The court granted rehearing en banc to consider the proper standard for applying the equal-terms provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. That provision states that "no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation…”
Lance Wood v. Keith Yordy, 753 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2014).
Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2) — 41 cases
Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty., 915 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2019). “The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' suit for failure to state a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. , the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of…”
Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cnty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm'n, 768 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014). “§§ 1983 , 1985, and 1986; the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.; and Connecticut state law by denying the application.”
Thai Meditation Ass'n of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, 980 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 2020).
Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta, 654 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2011). “As pertinent to this appeal, Covenant and Anderson each allege multiple claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and against Covenant and Anderson on all…”
Tree of Life Christian Sch. v. City of Upper Arlington, Ohio, 905 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2018). “§ 2000cc(a)(1) (“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 on…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3) — 21 cases
Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004). “h”), two synagogues serving the Surf- *1219 side-Bal Harbour-Bay Harbor Islands area of Miami-Dade County, Florida, appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Surfside (“Surfside”) on the synagogues’ claims challenging the Surfside Zoning…”
Guatay Christian Fellowship v. Cnty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2011).
Congregation Rabbinical Coll. of Tartikov, Inc. v. Vill. of Pomona, 138 F. Supp. 3d 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta, 654 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2011). “As pertinent to this appeal, Covenant and Anderson each allege multiple claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and against Covenant and Anderson on all…”
Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Evanston, Inc. v. City of Evanston, 250 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(A) — 6 cases
Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012).
Congregation Rabbinical Coll. of Tartikov, Inc. v. Vill. of Pomona, 945 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2019).
Moxley v. Town of Walkersville, 601 F. Supp. 2d 648 (D. Maryland 2009).
Eagle Cove Camp & Conf. C v. Town of Woodboro, Wisconsin, 734 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2013).
Vision Church, United Methodist v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(B) — 20 cases
Church of Our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ v. City of Markham, 913 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 2019).
Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 450 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). “The full text of RLUIPA section 2, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, reads as follows: (a) Substantial burdens (1) 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…”
Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery Cnty. Council, 706 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2013).
Moxley v. Town of Walkersville, 601 F. Supp. 2d 648 (D. Maryland 2009).
Vision Church, United Methodist v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(l) — 51 cases
Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007). “The land-use section of the statute is further subdivided into two sections: Substantial Burdens, § 2000cc(a), and Discrimination and Exclusion, § 2000cc(b).”
Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 450 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). “The full text of RLUIPA section 2, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, reads as follows: (a) Substantial burdens (1) 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…”
Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta, 654 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2011). “As pertinent to this appeal, Covenant and Anderson each allege multiple claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and against Covenant and Anderson on all…”
Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cnty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm'n, 768 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014). “§§ 1983 , 1985, and 1986; the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.; and Connecticut state law by denying the application.”
Epona, LLC v. Cnty. of Ventura, 876 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2017).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(l) — 1 case
Spavone v. City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(l)(a) — 1 case
Corp. of the Presiding Bishop v. City of West Linn, 111 P.3d 1123 (Or. 2005).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.