Religion

• Lubavitch v. Litchfield (2d Cir.) - Amicus
  • The district court wrongly applied RLUIPA's substantial burden provision in assessing the synagogue's claims when it concluded that the historic preservation committee's system of individualized assessments was a neutral rule of general applicability
  • The district court misconstrued RLUIPA's nondiscrimination provision when it required the synagogue to identify another religious institution that was identically situated but treated more favorably, rather than inquiring more broadly as to whether there was any evidence of discrimination
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	11/14/12

• Knight v. Thompson (11th Cir.) - Amicus
  • Alabama failed to meet its burden under RLUIPA of demonstrating that its challenged practice is the least restrictive means of meeting its compelling interests
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	08/27/12

• Islamic Center of North Fulton v. City of Alpharetta (11th Cir.) - Amicus
  • The district court applied an overly restrictive standard to the substantial burden claim and that, under the correct standard, the Center has produced evidence that raises at least a triable issue of fact as to whether the City's denial of its application amounted to a substantial burden on religious exercise
  • The Supreme Court's decision in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977), supplies the correct framework for evaluating an RLUIPA discrimination claim
  • The district court erred when requiring the Center to point to a comparator that is "prima facie identical in all relevant respects"
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	06/12/12

• Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery County Council (4th Cir.) - Amicus
  • The district court misapplied RLUIPA's "substantial burden" standard in the land use context
  • Bethel raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether the County's regulation, which completely prohibits Bethel from building a church on its land, constituted a substantial burden on Bethel's religious exercise
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision , 706 F.3d 548	01/31/13
  Brief as Amicus	04/12/12

• Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs (5th Cir.) - Amicus
  • The city's zoning ordinance, which requires that places of worship obtain approval of the Mayor, the Board of Aldermen, and 60% of neighboring landowners, violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc
  • The court erred in finding that the church could not show any harm or substantial threat of harm where it had not yet exceeded the capacity of its current building and where the lack of space hindered the congregation's growth
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision , 697 F.3d 279	09/27/12
  Brief as Amicus	03/14/12

• Garner v. Kennedy (5th Cir.) - Amicus
  • TDCJ's ban on beards violates Section 3 of RLUIPA because it is not the least restrictive means of advancing the TDCJ's compelling interests in effective and economical prison security
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision , 2013 WL 1315926	04/02/13
  Brief as Amicus	12/27/11

• Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (S. Ct.) – Respondent
  • None of the constitutional provisions from which a ministerial exception may derive - the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause and the freedom of association - precludes the application of the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA in this case
  
   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, 132 S. Ct. 694	01/11/12
  Brief for the Federal Respondent	08/02/11

• Thunderhorse v. Pierce (S. Ct.) – Amicus
  • The Fifth Circuit erred by failing to require that TDCJ explain why the less restrictive practices advocated by Thunderhorse were not feasible, or why the TDCJ’s inconsistent application of the grooming policy did not indicate that less restrictive means were possible
  • Because the courts of appeals, including the Fifth Circuit, have generally correctly applied RLUIPA’s standards, this case does not warrant plenary review, and the Court should therefore either deny the petition or, in the alternative, grant the petition and summarily reverse the Fifth Circuit
  
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari denied, 131 S. Ct. 896	01/10/11
  Brief as amicus in response to Court’s invitation	12/01/10

• Khatib v. County of Orange (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Orange County courthouse holding facility falls within the ordinary, common meaning of the terms “jail” and “pretrial detention facility” and is thus an “institution” for purposes of CRIPA and RLUIPA
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 639 F.3d 898	03/15/11
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	10/04/10

• Sossamon v. Texas (S. Ct.) -- Amicus
  • The Court should hold the petition on the issue of damages against state officials in their official capacity pending the Court’s decision in Cardinal v. Metrish, No. 09-109, because that case provides a better vehicle for resolving the issue
  • The Court should deny the petition on the issue of damages against state officials in their individual capacities because, while the decisions below were incorrect, there is no split in the Circuits on this issue
  • RLUIPA itself specifies that “appropriate relief” may be obtained against any government that violates its terms
  • RLUIPA is a statute that “prohibits discrimination,” such that accepting federal funds waives a State’s immunity from suits to enforce it pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000d-7
  
   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision [PDF], 131 S. Ct. 1651	04/20/11
  Brief as Amicus	08/10/10
  Certiorari granted, 130 S. Ct. 3319	05/24/10
  Brief as amicus in response to Court’s invitation	03/18/10

• Cardinal v. Metrish (S. Ct.) - Amicus
  • Granting certiorari was warranted because the Sixth Circuit incorrectly concluded that a State that accepts federal funds does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suits for money damages under RLUIPA
  • 42 U.S.C. 2000d-7 clearly conditions a State’s receipt of federal funds on its waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to damages suits to enforce federal anti-discrimination statutes, like RLUIPA
  • Under the Court’s Spending Clause decisions, the plain language of RLUIPA conditions the receipt of federal funds on a State’s waiver of immunity to private damages claims
  
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari denied, 131 S. Ct. 2149 (Mem)	04/25/11
  Brief as amicus in response to Court’s invitation	03/18/10

• Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • City of Yuma’s zoning code, which permits secular membership organizations to locate in the City’s Old Town District as a matter of right but requires religious membership organizations to obtain a conditional use permit, violates RLUIPA’s equal terms provision, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(1)
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 651 F.3d 1163	07/12/11
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	08/07/09

• Nelson v. Miller (7th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The magistrate applied an erroneous standard in finding that the denial of the non-meat diet on the grounds that it was not required by Nelson’s religion did not impose a substantial burden on Nelson’s religious exercise within the meaning of that term in RLUIPA
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 570 F.3d 868	07/01/09
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	09/11/08

• Digrugilliers v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis (7th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The district court erred in concluding that the church had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its RLUIPA “equal terms” claim
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	04/04/07
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 506 F.3d 612	11/02/07

• Hollywood Community Synagogue & United States v. City of Hollywood (11th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court did not err in denying appellants’ motion to intervene
  • Appellants cannot challenge the entry of the consent decree on the ground that the district court should first have held a hearing
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee [PDF]	10/25/06
  Court of Appeals Decision, 254 F. App'x 769 (unpublished)	11/20/07

• Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck (2d Cir.) -- Intervenor & Amicus
  • The district court correctly upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA
  • The district court properly concluded that defendants substantially burdened plaintiff’s religious exercise, and failed to demonstrate that the substantial burden was imposed to further a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive manner
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Intervenor & Amicus In Support of Plaintiff-Appellee[PDF]	08/11/06
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 504 F.3d 338	10/17/07

• Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch (3d Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The equal terms provision of RLUIPA does not contain a substantial burden requirement
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	06/07/06
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 510 F.3d 253	11/27/07

• Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton (2d Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Taking Faith Temple’s property pursuant to the comprehensive plan would constitute the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation under RLUIPA
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant [PDF]	05/24/06

• Living Water Church of God v. Meridian Charter Township (6th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Denial of the SUP constitutes a substantial burden on the church's religious exercise
  • The Township did not use the least restrictive means to serve a compelling governmental interest
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus Supporting Appellees and Urging Affirmance [PDF]	03/15/06
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], 258 F. App'x 729 (unpublished)	12/10/07

• Bush v. Holmes (Fla. Sup. Ct.) -- Amicus
  • The Florida Court of Appeals erred in holding that Locke v. Davey barred appellants' Free Exercise Clause claim
  • This court's doctrine of constitutional avoidance suggests that this court should maintain its prior construction of the no-aid provision and uphold the scholarship program
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus Supporting Appellants and Urging Reversal [PDF]	01/24/05
  Florida Supreme Court Decision [PDF], reported at 919 So.2d 392	01/05/06

• Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries v. Glover (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The County engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by denying Faith Center equal access to the Antioch meeting rooms
  • There is no practical or constitutionally permissible basis to distinguish worship from religious viewpoints in a broadly defined forum
  • Permitting Faith Center to use Antioch's meeting room on equal terms with other community groups does not violate the Establishment Clause
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus Supporting Appellees and Urging Affirmance [PDF]	11/22/05
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 462 F.3d 1194	09/20/06

• Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The Boy Scouts is not a religious organization for purposes of Establishment Clause analysis
  • Even if the Boy Scouts is considered religious, the leases are value-for-value contracts, not "aid" to a religious organization
  • Even assuming the Boy Scouts is a religious organization and the leases are "aid," such aid would not violate the Constitution
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision , 704 F.3d 1067	12/20/12
  Court of Appeals Order [PDF], reported at 471 F.3d 1038	12/18/06
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	02/15/05

• Saints Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. (7th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The district court incorrectly applied CLUB's standard for assessing facial violations of RLUIPA's substantial burden provision to this as-applied challenge
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	08/13/04
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 396 F.3d 895	02/01/05

• Guru Nanak Sikh Society v. County of Sutter (9th Cir.) -- Intervenor/Amicus
  • The district court correctly found that the county's denial of Guru Nanak's application for a use permit constituted a substantial burden in violation of Section 2 (a)(1) of RLUIPA
  • RLUIPA Section 2(a)(1), as made applicable by Section 2(a)(2)(c), is a valid exercise of Congress's Section 5 powers because it codifies established constitutional principles
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Intervenor and Amicus [PDF]	05/19/04
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 456 F.3d978	08/01/06

• Muhammed v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (6th Cir.) -- Intervenor-Appellee
  • Title VII's prohibition of religious discrimination, including its accommodation requirement, is valid Section 5 legislation
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Intervenor-Appellee [PDF]	03/08/04
  Appeal dismissed	01/06/05

• Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside (11th Cir.) -- Amicus/Intervenor
  • Surfside's zoning scheme violates Section 2(b)(1) of RLUIPA because it treats religious assemblies on less than equal terms with similarly situated secular assemblies
  • The plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment as to whether Surfside's zoning scheme imposes a substantial burden on their exercise of religion in violation of Section 2(a)(1) of RLUIPA
  • The RLUIPA sections at issue are a valid exercise of Congress's authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and under the Commerce Clause
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus[PDF]	11/25/03
  Brief as Intervenor[PDF]	01/05/04
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 366 F.3d 1214	04/21/04

• Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland v. Montgomery County Public Schools (4th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The district court erred in balancing the imminent harm to CEF against the potential harm to Defendants-Appellees when considering CEF's motion for preliminary injunction
  • The board engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by denying CEF equal access to its folder forum
  • Permitting CEF to promote its after-school activities on equal terms with other community organizations does not violate the Establishment Clause
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus[PDF]	06/11/03
  Court of Appeals decision [PDF], reported at 373 F.3d 589	06/30/04

• Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey v. Stafford Township School District (3d Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Stafford engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by denying CEF equal access to its community communications system
  • Permitting CEF to promote its after-school activities on equal terms with other community organizations does not violate the Establishment Clause
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus[PDF]	05/09/03
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 386 F.3d 514	10/15/04

• Donovan v. Punxsutawney Area School District (3d Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Denying FISH access to the limited open forum the school has created during the activities period violates the Equal Access Act
  • Denying plaintiff an equal opportunity to hold club meetings during the activity period violates the First Amendment
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus[PDF]	01/09/03
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 336 F.3d 211	07/15/03

• Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of NY (2d Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Bronx Household's activities fall easily within the broad contours of the school's facility use policy and its exclusion is, thus, viewpoint discrimination
  • There is no practical or constitutionally permissible basis to distinguish worship and religious viewpoints in a broadly defined forum
  • Permitting Bronx Household to rent school facilities on equal terms with others does not violate the Establishment Clause
  • The City's proposed policy modification to exclude religious sermons and services is not constitutionally permissible
  • Permitting Bronx Household to continue to rent school facilities on equal terms with others does not violate the Establishment Clause
  • The Board engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by denying Bronx Household equal access to the school
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus[PDF]	10/25/02
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 331 F.3d 342	06/06/03
  Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion[PDF]	05/17/05
  District Court Decision [PDF], reported at 400 F.Supp.2d 581	11/16/05
  Brief as Amicus[PDF]	07/17/06
  Courts of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 492 F.3d 89	07/02/07

---

Browse Briefs by Category

Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Religion Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other

---