The Substantial Burden Inquiry In RLUIPA Cases Is a Question of Law

Over the last 25 years, since its adoption by Congress in 2000, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) has been the subject of much litigation, when religious organization have tried to establish uses otherwise inconsistent with local zoning. RLUIPA tries to create a balance between local zoning authority and the free practice of religion. In particular, RLUIPA prohibits the government from imposing a ‘substantial burden’ on a person’s or religious institution’s ‘religious exercise’ unless the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. §2000cc(a)(1).” Significantly, the issues the courts have dealt with are whether the denial of a religious use at a specific location places a substantial burden on religious observance, or if the denial of such a use in a specific location is a proper exercise of government authority. Further, another question often addressed is whether there are potentially other nearby properties where the religious use might reasonably locate.