ADL has submitted "friend of the court" briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the New York-based 2nd Circuit, the California-based 9th Circuit, and the Georgia-based 11th Circuit in cases concerning the constitutionality of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA").

Enacted by Congress in 2000, RLUIPA prohibits local governments from applying land use and zoning regulations in ways that substantially burden the religious exercise of individuals or religious institutions. It also contains an Equal Terms provision that prohibits local governments from enacting or applying land use regulations that treat religious groups less favorably than non-religious groups. The defendants in these cases claim that RLUIPA is unconstitutional because Congress did not have authority under the 14th Amendment to pass the statute. ADL's briefs argue that the 14th Amendment empowered Congress to enact RLUIPA.

During the late 1990s, ADL along with other concerned organizations successfully lobbied for the passage of RLUIPA. The following are ADL's submissions to the federal appeals courts:

Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck (2nd Cir. 2004). Westchester Day School, a religious school, challenged the Village Zoning Board of Appeals' revocation of a favorable decision that would have permitted the school to renovate and construct school buildings.
UPDATE: On September 27, 2004, the Court decided that there are outstanding factual questions precluding a finding in favor of Westchester Day School at this time. It did not address the constitutionality of RLUIPA. The Court ordered that the case proceed to trial before the lower court to resolve these questions.
(.pdf format - 1.45 MB - requires Acrobat Reader)

Murphy v. Zoning Commission of the Town of New Milford. (2nd Circuit) Robert and Mary Murphy challenged a Town order prohibiting them from using their home to host prayer meetings of over twenty-five persons.
(.pdf format - 1.5 MB - requires Acrobat Reader)
UPDATE: On March 25, 2005, the Court found that the Murphys' could not proceed in federal court without first obtaining a final, definitive local ruling about the town's order from a zoning board of appeals. Based on this finding, the Court dismissed the Murphys' RLUIPA claim without prejudice. This means that the Murphys may bring a RLUIPA claim in federal court after they obtain the final local order.
More (.pdf format - 186 KB - requires Acrobat Reader)

Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore (9th Circuit). The Christian Center challenged the City’s denial of its application for a conditional-use permit to operate a church on a piece of property owned by a school.
(.pdf format - 1.6 MB - requires Acrobat Reader)

Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter (9th Circuit). The Sikh Society challenged the County's denial of permit to build a temple on property owned by the group.
(.pdf format - 1.4 MB - requires Acrobat Reader)

Konikov v. Orange County (11th Cir. - 2004). A Rabbi challenged the County's requirement that he obtain a special exception to use a house in a residential neighborhood for religious services.
(.pdf format - 1.6 MB - requires Acrobat Reader)
UPDATE: On June 3, 2005, the Court upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA's Equal Terms provision, and it reversed the lower court's dismissal of the Rabbi's Equal Terms claim. The Court ruled that the county treated his religious assembly on less than equal terms than non-religious assemblies. However, the Court upheld the lower court's dismissal of the Rabbi's claim under RLUIPA's Substantial Burden on Religion provision. The Court did not address the constitutionality of this provision.

Background on The Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act

America has a robust history of religious tolerance, which is embodied by the religion clauses of the Constitution’s First Amendment. This history may account for data suggesting that Americans, more than any other Western Society, describe themselves as being observant of some faith. Yet discrimination by local and state governments against houses of worship and the religious practice of institutionalized persons is a disturbing problem across our country.

During the late 1990s, Congress sought to address this issue by holding multiple investigative hearings. They revealed overwhelming evidence that local governments discriminate against both majority and minority religious groups in the drafting and implementation of zoning and land-use regulations, as well as evidence of arbitrary and frivolous restrictions on the religious practice of institutionalized persons within prisons, mental hospitals, and other government institutions.

In response to the troubling information brought to light by these hearings, Congress in 2000 unanimously passed the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). This statute safeguards the religious freedom of houses of worship in the land-use context and institutionalized persons by restoring courts’ ability to apply a strict standard for reviewing laws that substantially burden religious exercise. Prior to the enactment of RLUIPA, the U.S. Supreme Court had eliminated this standard of review for neutral laws applicable to both the religious and secular.

Under this rigorous standard, a local or state government must show that there is a “compelling reason” for the substantial burden on religion, and the law or regulation burdening a house of worship or institutionalized person must be the “least restrictive means” of accomplishing that compelling reason.

As a longtime advocate for religious freedom, ADL strongly supports RLUIPA. Along with other concerned organizations, ADL successfully lobbied for the passage of RLUIPA. ADL has continued this advocacy by regularly submitting friend of the court legal briefs to various U.S. Courts of Appeals defending the constitutionality of RLUIPA.