42 U.S.C. § 2000cc
Protection of land use as religious exercise
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.
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.
Pub. L. 106–274, § 1,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,747
cases (731 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch
Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch (2007)
“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 (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…”
Ramirez v. Collier (2022)
“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. Village of Hazel Crest (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…”
Tree of Life Christian Sch. v. City of Upper Arlington, Ohio (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…”
St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago (2007)
“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 County, Inc. v. Litchfield Historic District Commission (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.”
Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton, Inc. v. Broward County (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…”
Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty. (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…”
Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta (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…”
Livingston Christian Schools v. Genoa Charter Township (2017)
“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 Service (2008)
“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.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(1) — 3 cases
Johnson v. Patterson (2025)
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(A) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(B) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(C) — 5 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(a) — 4 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(b)(l) — 2 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) — 62 cases
Smith v. Allen (2007)
Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch (2007)
“The land-use section of the statute is further subdivided into two sections: Substantial Burdens, § 2000cc(a), and Discrimination and Exclusion, § 2000cc(b).”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1) — 153 cases
Cyril Korte v. HHS (2013)
Tree of Life Christian Sch. v. City of Upper Arlington, Ohio (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(a)(1)(A) — 10 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1)(A)(B) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1)(B) — 2 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2) — 30 cases
Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside (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 (2011)
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(A) — 15 cases
River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest (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 County, Inc. v. Litchfield Historic District Commission (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.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(B) — 16 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(C) — 43 cases
Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Inc. v. Litchfield Historic District Commission (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.”
River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest (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…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(a) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(b)(2) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(b)(l) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(c) — 2 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(A1) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(l) — 87 cases
Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch (2007)
“The land-use section of the statute is further subdivided into two sections: Substantial Burdens, § 2000cc(a), and Discrimination and Exclusion, § 2000cc(b).”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(l)(A) — 6 cases
Prater v. City of Burnside (2002)
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(l)(B) — 2 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b) — 24 cases
Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside (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…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1) — 85 cases
Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch (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 (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. Village of Hazel Crest (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 (2014)
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2) — 41 cases
Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty. (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 County, Inc. v. Litchfield Historic District Commission (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.”
Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta (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 (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 (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…”
Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta (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…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(A) — 6 cases
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(B) — 20 cases
Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton, Inc. v. Broward County (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…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(l) — 51 cases
Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch (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 County (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 (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 County, Inc. v. Litchfield Historic District Commission (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.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(l) — 1 case
Spavone v. City of New York (2005)
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(l)(a) — 1 case
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.