|
http://www.becketfund.org/files/a19c7.pdf The Court refines the “substantial burden” standard along the same lines as Posner’s opinion in Sts. Constantine & Helen, and then finds a “substantial burden” on the facts before it. The Court also rejects an Enforcement Clause challenge to the application of Section 2(a) of RLUIPA through the “individualized assessments” jurisdictional hook of Section 2(a)(2)(C).
The case of Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore was argued before the same panel on the same day. The trial court decision in that case was the first (and still only) to accept any challenge to the constitutionality of any land use provision of RLUIPA. Specifically, it accepted two constitutional challenges, Commerce and Enforcement Clause challenges to Section 2(a), and the latter of these is exactly what the 9th Circuit rejected today in Guru. (The Elsinore decision is not out yet, but we expect it soon.)
The Becket Fund was amicus for plaintiffs in Guru, and represents the plaintiffs on appeal in Elsinore. |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
