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.
“Because the substantial burden inquiry involves defining the bounds of a legal principle, we conclude that it is a question of law and, therefore, that the district court erred in submitting this question to the jury.” However, for reasons noted below the court did not overturn the failure of the district court to address the issue.
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
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?