CC & PC PACKET 03232015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et see. Congress reacted in 1993 by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which established "strict scrutiny" of any law that substantially burdened a religious individual or institution. A church in Texas challenged a city historic preservation law under RFRA and in 1997 the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court struck down the application of RFRA to state and local government, ruling it was an unconstitutional violation of the limits of federalism. So Congress tried again, and after unsuccessful bills in 1998 and 1999, RLUIPA became law in 2000. III. RLUIPA prohibitions Department of Justice There is little guidance for compliance with RLUIPA, causing city officials, RLUIPA Policy Statement, Sept 2010. planners, and attorneys to puzzle over the language of this law. The following information from the U.S. Department of Justice provides examples of the kinds of zoning actions and ordinance language that might get a city into trouble with RLUIPA. A. Infringement of religious exercise 42 U.s.C. s 2000cua). RLUIPA bars 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 the restriction. In addition, the restriction imposed must be the least restrictive way for the city to further that interest. Minor costs or inconveniences imposed on religious institutions are not enough to trigger RLUIPA's protections. The burden must be "substantial." Once the institution has shown a substantial burden on its religious exercise, the city must show that the reason for imposing a restriction is "compelling." Because the religious organizations in the following examples have demonstrated a substantial burden on their religious exercise, and the justifications offered by the cities in these cases are not compelling, the cities would likely be in violation of RLUIPA. Example: A church has applied for a variance to build a modest addition to its building for Sunday school classes. The church demonstrated that the addition is critical to carrying out its religious mission, that there is adequate space on the lot, and that there would be a negligible impact on traffic and congestion in the area. The city denied the variance. Example: A Jewish congregation has been meeting in various rented spaces that have proven inadequate for the religious needs of its growing membership. The congregation purchased land and seeks to build a synagogue. The city denied the permit, and the only reason given is "we have enough houses of worship in this city already, and we want more businesses." League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/1/2010 Zoning for Religion Page 2