U.S. Department
of Justice
Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
Anchor Stone Christian Church v City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.)
On March 14, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Anchor Stone Christian Church v. City of Santa Ana, No. 8:25-cv-215, a lawsuit alleging that the City violated RLUIPA by enacting and enforcing zoning provisions that treat religious uses less favorably than secular places of assembly. The lawsuit alleges that the City’s professional district allows, as of right, nonreligious assembly uses like museums and art galleries, but only allows religious assembly uses with the City’s discretionary approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). The lawsuit alleges that Anchor Stone is a small Christian church of first-generation Chinese and Taiwanese Americans. It obtained space within the City’s professional district and applied for a CUP to operate a Church but was denied by the City. The Church filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order allowing it to worship at its property. The Department’s statement of interest supports the Church’s argument that the zoning code, on its face, treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assembly uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision, and that the City has failed to justify this unequal treatment.
Press Release (3/17/2025)
Hope Rising Community Church v. Borough of Clarion (W.D. Pa.)
On March 3, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Hope Rising Community Church v. Borough of Clarion, No. 2:24-cv-01504 (W.D. Pa.), a lawsuit alleging that the Borough violated RLUIPA by enacting and enforcing zoning provisions that treat religious uses less favorably than similar secular assemblies. The lawsuit alleges that the Church has outgrown its current facility and that the only suitable property in the Borough is located in the Borough’s C-2 Commercial District. This District does not allow houses of worship, but permits nonreligious assembly uses like theaters and civic/cultural buildings. When the Church approached the Borough about using the property for religious purposes, Borough officials allegedly told the Church that the Borough would not grant zoning approval and that the Borough did not “need any more Churches.” The Borough filed a motion to dismiss the Church’s lawsuit, arguing in part that the Church had failed to properly allege an equal terms claim under RLUIPA and that the Church was not sufficiently injured by the Borough’s conduct to assert such a claim. The statement of interest refutes these contentions, explaining that the Church has properly alleged an equal terms claim and that the Church, which cannot develop its proposed religious facility, has suffered a concrete injury.
United States v Sugar Grove Township (W.D. Pa.)
On March 18, 2025, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Sugar Grove Township, Pennsylvania, et al. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on January 30, 2025, alleges that Sugar Grove Township, PA (“Township”), and the Sugar Grove Area Sewage Authority (“SUGASA”) violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by enacting and enforcing two ordinances against Old Order Amish residents: one mandating that certain households connect to the Township’s and SUGASA’s municipal sewage system, which requires the use of an electric grinder pump, and one banning privies on property intended for permanent residence. The lawsuit alleges that these acts substantially burdened Old Order Amish residents’ religious exercise, which restricts the use of electricity and requires adherents to remain separate and apart from the modern world. The consent order requires the Township and SUGASA to exempt certain Old Order Amish households from mandatory connection to the municipal sewage system, permit Old Order Amish residents to use privies on their properties, and forgive any outstanding liens, fines, or other monetary penalties against Old Order Amish households for prior noncompliance with the two ordinances. Among other things, the consent order also requires the Township and SUGASA to train their officials and employees on RLUIPA’s provisions, establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA complaints, and provide reports to the United States.
Press Release (1/30/2025)
United States v City of Brunswick, Georgia (S.D. Ga.)
On December 16, 2024, the United States filed a complaint against the City of Brunswick, Georgia, alleging that the city violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) through its efforts to interfere with and permanently close The Well, a faith-based resource center affiliated with the United Methodist Church for those experiencing homelessness. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, alleges that, since 2014, The Well, as an expression of its staff’s Christian faith, has operated a daytime hospitality and religious resource center for those experiencing homelessness, offering showers, laundry, meals and other services. In public filings seeking federal funding, the city touted The Well’s services as part of the city’s efforts to reduce and end homelessness, but the city later engaged in a campaign to close The Well, blaming it for unrelated criminal activity in Brunswick. Even after The Well adopted safety and security measures suggested by the Brunswick Police Department, the city filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to close it. The complaint alleges that the city’s efforts to close The Well have imposed a substantial burden on The Well’s religious exercise, that the city lacks a compelling interest and has not employed the least restrictive means of enforcing its purported interest. The complaint seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the city from substantially burdening The Well’s religious exercise.
Press Release (12/16/2024)
United States v. Hendricks County, Indiana (S.D. Ind.)
On September 18, 2024, the United States filed a complaint and proposed consent decree in United States v. Hendricks County, Indiana, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, settling allegations that Hendricks County (the County) violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by twice unlawfully denying zoning approval to Al Hussnain Inc., an Islamic educational organization, seeking to develop a religious seminary, school and residential housing in Hendricks County. The court entered the consent decree on December 4, 2024, which resolved the lawsuit filed by the United States. The complaint alleged that the County, facing significant community animus and opposition, denied Al Hussnain’s rezoning applications to develop a mixed-use community containing a residential neighborhood, community center, K-12 religious school, Islamic seminary, and dormitories for seminary students at two different locations in the County, citing concerns that lacked a legitimate basis. The complaint further alleged that Hendricks County repeatedly departed from its own zoning ordinances as well as the county’s processes and procedures for reviewing zoning applications and treated Al Hussnain’s application worse than similar applications brought by non-Muslim developers. The complaint alleged that the County engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination and denied rights to a group of persons because of religion in violation of the FHA and imposed a substantial burden on the Islamic organization’s religious exercise, treated the organization on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies or institutions and discriminated against the organization on the basis of religion in violation of RLUIPA. The consent decree requires Hendricks County to pay monetary damages of $295,000 to Al Hussnain, Inc., a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States, adopt Fair Housing and Religious Land Use policies, train its officials and employees on the requirements of RLUIPA and the FHA, and establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA and FHA complaints.
Gethsemani Baptist Church v City of San Luis (D. Az.)
On November 22, 2024, the District Court denied the City’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court found that case was prudentially ripe for adjudication because the City had revoked the Church’s legal non-conforming use status for its Food Ministry and rejected the City’s argument that the Church should have to apply for a conditional use permit because the Church alleged that it already had the right to operate its Food Ministry. The Court also found that RLUIPA’s individualized assessment provision was met because the Church had adequately plead in its Complaint that the City had made individualized assessments when it considered whether the Church was a legal non-conforming use. The United Stated had filed a Statement of Interest in this case on July 29, 2024, explains that the Church’s RLUIPA claims were prudentially ripe for adjudication because the City had made a final decision with respect to the Church’s Food Ministry that inflicted considerable harm on the Church and that the City’s actions towards the Church and its application of its code to the Church satisfy RLUIPA’s individualized assessment requirement.
Press Release (7/30/2024)
Chabad Jewish Center of The Big Island v. County of Hawaii (D. Haw.)
On March 29, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Chabad Jewish Center of the Big Island, et al. v. County of Hawaii, et al. (D. Haw.), a case brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Plaintiffs, a Chabad Jewish Center and its Rabbi, Levi Gerlitzky, filed their complaint against the County of Hawaii and its planning director after the County assessed thousands of dollars in fines against Plaintiffs and prohibited them from operating a house of worship in a residential zone without a use permit, even though analogous nonreligious meeting facilities do not require a use permit. The complaint, filed in conjunction with a motion for preliminary injunction, alleges that the County’s zoning code and conduct has substantially burdened Plaintiffs’ religious exercise and treats Plaintiffs’ worse than comparable secular uses in violation of RLUIPA. In its Statement of Interest, the United States supports Plaintiffs’ argument that the Hawaii County zoning code, on its face, treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assembly uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision.
Statement of Interest in Chai Center for Living Judaism v. Township of Millburn (D.N.J.)
On December 4, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Chai Center for Living Judaism v. Township of Millburn (D.N.J.), a case brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). After the township denied an Orthodox Jewish congregation’s application to build a synagogue on res judicata grounds, the congregation filed the complaint in this case, alleging that the denial imposed a substantial burden on the congregation’s religious exercise, discriminated against the congregation based on its religion, unreasonably limited its religious assembly, and treated it worse than comparable secular uses. The township filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the RLUIPA claims should be dismissed based on a state-law standard of review for zoning appeals and that the RLUIPA claims are not ripe because the zoning denial was based on procedural grounds. In its Statement of Interest, the United States explains that state-law standards of review do not apply to RLUIPA claims and that the RLUIPA claims are ready to be adjudicated because the township reached a final decision on the zoning application, which has harmed plaintiffs. On May 23, 2024, the Court denied the township’s motion, finding that res judicata did not bar the congregation’s claims and that they were ripe.
Micah’s Way v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.)
On May 9, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Micah’s Way v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.), a private lawsuit brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The complaint in the case alleges that the City of Santa Ana substantially burdened Micah’s Way’s religious exercise when it refused to grant a certificate of occupancy to allow Micah’s Way, a faith-based organization that provides services to persons that are homeless, to provide food and drinks to its clients in accordance with its religious beliefs. The City filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that feeding persons who are homeless is not religious exercise and that it did not substantially burden Micah’s Way’s religious exercise. The United States’ Statement of Interest responds to the City’s contentions and explains that feeding persons who are homeless may be religious exercise under RLUIPA and that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the City’s denial of its certificate of occupancy and threats of fines and criminal prosecution had substantially burdened its religious exercise, in violation of RLUIPA.
On June 8, 2023, the Court issued an order denying the City’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, finding, inter alia, that feeding the homeless can be religious exercise for the purposes of RLUIPA and that prohibiting a religious organization from helping those in need could violate RULIPA’s substantial burden provision.
Adam Community Center v. City of Troy (E.D. Mich.)
On November 15, 2022, the United States filed a statement of interest related to damages briefing in Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, Michigan, et al (E.D. Mich.), the private companion case to United States v. City of Troy, Michigan (E.D. Mich.). The statement of interest explains that damages may be available to private litigants pursuing land use claims against municipal defendants under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). The damages briefing followed the Court’s orders in both lawsuits finding that Troy violated RLUIPA by (1) imposing an unjustified substantial burden on Adam Community Center’s exercise of religion in its effort to operate a mosque and (2) requiring places of worship to abide by more onerous zoning restrictions than places of nonreligious assembly.
Thai Meditation Association of Alabama v. City of Mobile, Alabama (S.D. Ala.)
Thai Association of Alabama, et al. v. City of Mobile (S.D. Ala.): On May 7, 2021, the Division filed a Statement of Interest in Support of Neither Party in this RLUIPA case on remand from the Eleventh Circuit. The Division filed a brief and participated in oral argument in the appeal, arguing that the district court had applied the wrong standard for evaluating RLUIPA substantial burden claims. The Eleventh Circuit agreed and reversed and remanded for the district court to apply an approach modeled on the decisions of other circuits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on April 12, 2021. The Statement of Interest elaborates on the approaches of the other circuits in evaluating substantial burden, and explains the compelling interest test the court should apply if it finds a substantial burden.
United States v. Township of Toms River, NJ (D. N.J.)
On March 10, 2021, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. Township of Toms River, NJ (D. N.J.). The complaint alleges that Toms River violated RLUIPA by enacting zoning regulations which place unreasonable limits on where religious assemblies and institutions may locate, substantially burden religious exercise, and treat religious assemblies and institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institution. The complaint alleges that since 2009, Toms River has enacted a series of revisions to its zoning code—including a ten-acre parcel minimum requirement—which greatly reduced both the number of zoning districts in which houses of worship can locate and the number of sites available for houses of worship. These restrictions have had a particular impact on the Township’s Orthodox Jewish population, who, because of their faith and religious traditions, tend to worship at small houses of worship which they walk to and from on the Sabbath and Holidays. On March 11, 2021, the court approved the consent order, which requires the Township to revise its zoning code to: reduce the minimum acreage required for a house of worship in many zoning districts from ten acres to two acres; allow houses of worship as-of-right in certain zoning districts; allow smaller houses of worship to be located on minor collector roads; and treat houses of worship on comparable terms to nonreligious places of assembly. The consent order also requires the Township to train its officials and employees on RLUIPA’s requirements and establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA complaints. The consent order further requires the Township to train its officials and employees on RLUIPA’s requirements and establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA complaints.