Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In Apache Stronghold v. United States, the 9th Circuit refused to bar the government from transferring federally-owned forest land, significant to Western Apache Indians’ spirituality, to a copper mining company. The court stated that the transfer did not substantially burden religious exercise under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause.
  • In Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. EEOC, a North Dakota district court blocked the Department of Health and Human Services and the EEOC from enforcing Affordable Care Act and Title VII mandates that require Christian employers to provide insurance coverage for gender transition procedures. The court stated that these employers would have to violate their religious beliefs to comply with these mandates.
  • In Bair Brucha Inc. v. Township of Toms River, New Jersey, a New Jersey district court found that the town used land use regulations to impede the construction of a synagogue in order to prevent the growth of the Orthodox Jewish community. The court cited evidence of anti-Semitic animus as the motivating factor behind the regulations and rejected the township’s argument that subsequent amendments to zoning laws shielded them from liability.
  • In Crosspoint Church v. Maikin, a Maine district court rejected a request to block the state’s laws barring LGBTQ discrimination from applying to a Christian school receiving public funding. The court stated that the legislature had the authority to define protected classes despite the school’s objections due to a conflict with religious beliefs.
  • Jewish students at Columbia University have filed a lawsuit accusing the institution of widespread antisemitism. The complaint alleges discriminatory policies, support for anti-Jewish violence by faculty, and a lack of protection for Jewish students from harassment.
  • A Christian youth-mentoring ministry in Oregon has filed a lawsuit challenging an anti-discrimination rule adopted by the Oregon Department of Education. The ministry argues that the rule violates its Free Exercise and Free Expression rights by disqualifying it from receiving grants due to their religious hiring practices, which require adherence to a Statement of Faith.
Posted on by

Weinstein on RLUIPA’s Effect on Local Governments

Alan C. Weinstein (Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University) has posted The Effect of RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions on Local Governments. The abstract follows.

In the absence of perfect information about how RLUIPA has affected local governments, this article argues that the courts have adopted a pragmatic approach to maneuvering in the difficult terrain that RLUIPA occupies: combining appropriate judicial deference to a legislature that enacts a neutral law of general applicability with the heightened judicial scrutiny that becomes appropriate when that same law is applied to a specific zoning approval, a circumstance that frequently allows for subjectivity, and thus the potential for discrimination or arbitrariness against religious uses, in the approval process. I conclude that: (1) until proven otherwise, the costs RLUIPA undoubtedly imposes on local governments is the price to be paid for insuring against the discriminatory or arbitrary application of land use regulations and (2) RLUIPA does not seek to establish an unconstitutional preference for religious uses, but rather a proper accommodation of religious exercise in the land use context.

Posted on by

Raccuia on RLUIPA and Burdens of Proof

Thomas E. Raccuia (student at Fordham University School of Law) has posted RLUIPA and Exclusionary Zoning: Government Defendants Should Have the Burden of Persuasion in Equal Terms Cases. The abstract follows.

Zoning and other land use regulations are often used to hinder the operation of religious institutions or the construction of their facilities. In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which protects religious land use. RLUIPA’s Equal Terms provision forbids governments from imposing land use regulations that treat religious institutions on less than equal terms with secular institutions.

Despite the apparent clarity of the statutory language, federal circuit courts have disagreed over the allocation of burdens of proof in Equal Terms cases. Some circuits have held that religious plaintiffs have the burden of persuasion, while others have held that the burden of persuasion falls on government defendants.  Read more