Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The broad and somewhat vague definition of religious exercise in The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) has invited much litigation over what constitutes a substantial burden and even what constitutes religious exercise.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. (RLUIPA), has been a controversial statute, particularly among small municipalities. The federal statute prohibits implementation of a land use regulation “in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious … institution,” unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest 42 U.S.C. 2000cc (a)(1). The broad and somewhat vague definition of religious exercise in the statute has invited much litigation over what constitutes a substantial burden and even what constitutes religious exercise. The statute’s definition “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C 2000cc-5(7)(A).
*May exclude premium content
By Stewart E. Sterk
Jeffrey Turkel’s lead article in last month’s issue focused on the Regina Metropolitan case, in which the Court of Appeals invalidated a number of…
Condominium Lien Enjoys Priority Over Mortgage
Business Judgment Rule Precludes Challenge to Cancellation of Shares
Conditional Payments Do Not Restart Statute Of Limitations On Foreclosure Action
Questions of Fact About Purchasers’ Good Faith In Making Mortgage Applications
Questions of Fact Remain on Implied Easement Claims
Presumption of Hostility Supports Adverse Possession Claim
Questions of Fact Remain About County’s Liability for Fuel Oil Discharge
Prohibition of Advertising Sign Upheld
Failure to Consider Rezoning Application Not Subject to Judicial Review