Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
In Spirit Of Aloha Temple v. County Of Maui, 132 F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2025), the court addressed the issue of whether the substantial burden test is a question of fact that should be presented to a jury, or a question of law to be determined by the court. The court noted that the First and Sixth Circuits had previously determined that the substantial burden issue is a question of law. In what was a case of first impression for the Ninth Circuit, the court agreed the substantial burden test is a question of law for the court to decide. However, after a detailed analysis which concluded it was a question of law, the court then applied an exception to the very rule it had just implemented.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.