Overview
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) is a federal statute enacted in 2000 to protect the religious freedom of two distinct groups:
- Individuals and institutions seeking to use land for religious purposes.
- Persons confined in correctional, mental health, or other institutional settings.
RLUIPA was passed in response to growing concerns that local zoning ordinances and institutional policies were being used to burden the free exercise of religion. The law is part of a broader effort to give clearer, more enforceable rights to religious minorities in the United States.
Key Provisions
RLUIPA contains two primary sections, each targeting a different context:
1. LandUse Protection (28 U.S.C. 2001)
It prohibits governments from imposing a landuse regulation that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person or religious organization unless the government can demonstrate that the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
2. Institutionalized Persons Protection (28 U.S.C. 2002)
This portion shields inmates and other institutionalized individuals from policies that substantially burden their religious exercise unless the same strict scrutiny testcompelling interest and least restrictive meansis satisfied.
The government may not impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person unless it demonstrates that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and that the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. RLUIPA, 2001(c)(2)
Both sections use the strict scrutiny standard, which is the highest level of judicial review.
Important Cases Shaping RLUIPA
The Seventh Circuit held that a citys denial of a permit for a mosque constituted a substantial burden under RLUIPA. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must show not merely a theoretical burden but one that is substantial and material.
The Fifth Circuit ruled that a citys rezoning ordinance that effectively forced a church to move violated RLUIPA because the city failed to prove that the rezoning was the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling interest.
This case involved a prison inmate who sought to bring a religious text (the Quran) into the facility. The Fourth Circuit held that the prisons blanket ban on nongovernmentprovided religious materials imposed a substantial burden and was not the least restrictive means of maintaining security.
In a criminal case, the Eleventh Circuit found that denying a prisoners request for a religious diet without a valid security justification violated RLUIPA.
These decisions illustrate how courts apply the strictscrutiny test and often require governments to seek less restrictive alternatives before burdening religious practices.
Implementation & Enforcement
RLUIPA is enforced through both private lawsuits and federal actions:
- Private Litigation: Individuals or organizations can file a civil action in federal court against a government entity that violates the statute. Available remedies include injunctive relief, attorneys fees, and monetary damages.
- Department of Justice (DOJ) Oversight: The DOJs Office of Civil Rights can bring actions on behalf of individuals, and the agency issues guidance to help local authorities comply with RLUIPA.
- State and Local Compliance: Many municipalities have revised zoning ordinances, permitting processes, and institutional policies to avoid RLUIPA liability.
Compliance tips for governments and institutions:
- Conduct a religious impact assessment before adopting landuse or institutional policies.
- Document any compelling interest (e.g., public safety, health) and explain why the chosen measure is the least restrictive option.
- Engage with affected religious groups early in the decisionmaking process.
- Maintain clear, written procedures for handling religious accommodation requests.
