RLUIPAReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
References in periodicals archive ?
3) RLUIPA established a serious violation of those rights by statute, and that is the distinction.
RLUIPA and the Minnesota Constitution ban zoning restrictions that impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person or institution unless the government can show that it has a compelling interest for imposing zoning restrictions and that the restriction is the least restrictive way for the government to further that interest.
On remand, the district court held that the prison's "zero tolerance" policy for possession of even one non-kosher food item violated the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA.
207 (noting in context of RLUIPA, costs may be considered, but will only be sufficient in limited situations and not when the cost of change or alternative is de minimis).
use disputes involving religious landowners with RLUIPA.
Spratt initially brought his claims under the RFRA, but since the RFRA did not apply after Boerne and the defendants acknowledged that Spratt could re-file his claims under the RLUIPA if necessary, the court and the parties decided to treat the complaint as filed under RLUIPA.
Part I will provide background regarding Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence, RLUIPA's legislative history, and Congress's enforcement power, one basis Congress claimed as giving it authority to enact RLUIPA and its unconstitutional predecessor, (8) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA").
Passed by Congress in 2000, RLUIPA says municipalities may not impose "a land-use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person" unless it can show a "compelling" public interest in doing so.
It will especially focus on RLUIPA, exploring the significant constitutional issues that have emerged in the wake of the Cutter decision.
Instead, RLUIPA has put municipalities, which now face large potential damage awards, on the defensive and created concerns among property owners that the zoning of their neighborhoods is subject to change at the whim of any religious organization wishing to put any use next door.
Specifically, I want to talk about the portions of RLUIPA that deal with land use more than the institutionalized persons provisions of RLUIPA.