RLUIPA | religious land use

To all those who attended today’s seminar, thank you.  Here are the links to the cases I mentioned.  From the morning session on Case Law Update:

In a case at the intersection of Kelo-style eminent domain and First Amendment church-state issues, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in In re Condemnation of 1839 North Eighth Street, No. 36 EAP 2006 (Dec. 29, 2007), held that the taking of property designated as “blighted” pursuant to a redevelopment plan, and for a nominal

Visit the New Jersey Eminent Domain Law blog and read “RLUIPA, Redevelopment, and Eminent Domain,” a report about Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, No. 06-1319 (Nov. 27, 2007), a recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware

In Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, No. 06-1464-cv (Oct. 17, 2007), the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).  The decision has been analyzed extensively by others, so I won’t repeat the details, just provide some links to

The Ninth Circuit panel summarizes its decision:

A Latin cross sits atop a prominent rock outcropping known as “Sunrise Rock” in the Mojave National Preserve (“Preserve”). Our court previously held that the presence of the cross in the Preserve—which consists of more than 90 percent federally-owned land, including the land where the cross is situated—violates

In The Access Fund v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 05-15585 (Aug. 27, 2007), the Ninth Circuit upheld the prohibition by the US Forest Service of recreational rock climbing at the culturally and religiously significant Cave Rock on the eastern shore of Lake Tahoe.  The rock is many things to many people:

To

Los Angeles entered into settlement agreement with a religious organization to settle a RLUIPA claim.  The city agreed as part of that settlement to issue a conditional use permit (CUP) to the congregation.  Neighbors complained that city could not agree in settlement agreement to override CUP process, which would have provided the neighbors notice and