102:
purpose of the regulation imposed. If a similar institution is found to be treated on better terms than a religious institution then the law or ordinance will be subject to strict scrutiny and invalidated. The
Seventh Circuit changed the Third Circuit's test only a little, by not using the purpose of the regulation imposed standard, but rather the regulatory criteria. It is believed that the Third Circuit approach was a little too easy to maneuver around and turn in the favor of the
101:
Courts have adopted applications of the Equal Terms
Provision that are very similar to one another. Separating from the Eleventh Circuit's approach to assembly or institution, the Third Circuit found that similarly situated assemblies or institutions had to be measured by the effect they had on the
23:
74:
98:
115:
94:
77:
was forced to analyze the Equal Terms
Provision. The Court interpreted the Equal Terms provision to include a broad definition of "assembly or institution" to compare
348:
353:
130:
can justify its treatment on different terms so long as it relates to a legitimate regulatory purpose and not the religious nature of the institution.
122:
used deals with the meaning of the word "equal" and stresses that it will mean different things in different situations. The
16:
38:. One provision of RLUIPA pertaining to land use is the Equal Terms Provision. The Equal Terms Provision states "No
46:
on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution." While RLUIPA has been the subject of much
218:
Centro
Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163, 1169 n.25 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011).
58:
332:
Centro
Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011).
53:
However, the Equal Terms
Provision has proven difficult for some courts to interpret and has caused a
151:
81:
and religious uses. If a similar secular institution is found, the law in question is subject to
308:
The
Lighthouse institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253, 269 (3d Cir. 2007).
299:
The
Lighthouse institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253, 266 (3d Cir. 2007).
230:
Centro
Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011).
42:
shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or
320:
River of Life
Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367, 371 (7th Cir. 2010).
119:
251:
The Lighthouse institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007).
103:
47:
82:
263:
River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2010).
57:
as to its application. At this point in time there are three different approaches that
152:"Statement on Signing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000"
342:
54:
281:
Midrash Sephardi Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1230-31 (11th Cir. 2004).
272:
Midrash Sephardi Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1218-19 (11th Cir. 2004).
177:
127:
85:, which means it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government end.
19:
290:
Midrash Sephardi Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1235 (11th Cir. 2004).
43:
27:
198:
78:
39:
70:
328:
326:
239:
Midrash Sephardi Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004).
226:
224:
35:
31:
50:, the Equal Terms Provision has received little attention on its own.
123:
259:
257:
118:
has weighed in most recently on the Equal Terms Provision. The
24:
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
247:
245:
26:into law on September 22 of 2000. This piece of
34:as it relates to institutionalized persons and
316:
314:
30:was intended to protect the free exercise of
8:
61:have applied to the Equal Terms Provision.
172:
170:
168:
145:
143:
69:In a case dealing with the placement of
349:Law about religion in the United States
139:
354:21st century in United States case law
89:The Third and Seventh Circuit Approach
7:
14:
1:
65:The Eleventh Circuit Approach
370:
110:The Ninth Circuit Approach
59:Circuit Courts of Appeals
126:goes on to state that a
178:"42 U.S.C. § 2000cc"
150:Clinton, William.
104:local municipality
48:scholarly writing
361:
333:
330:
321:
318:
309:
306:
300:
297:
291:
288:
282:
279:
273:
270:
264:
261:
252:
249:
240:
237:
231:
228:
219:
216:
210:
209:
207:
205:
199:"www.RLUIPA.org"
195:
189:
188:
186:
184:
174:
163:
162:
160:
158:
147:
75:Eleventh Circuit
369:
368:
364:
363:
362:
360:
359:
358:
339:
338:
337:
336:
331:
324:
319:
312:
307:
303:
298:
294:
289:
285:
280:
276:
271:
267:
262:
255:
250:
243:
238:
234:
229:
222:
217:
213:
203:
201:
197:
196:
192:
182:
180:
176:
175:
166:
156:
154:
149:
148:
141:
136:
112:
99:Seventh Circuit
91:
83:strict scrutiny
67:
12:
11:
5:
367:
365:
357:
356:
351:
341:
340:
335:
334:
322:
310:
301:
292:
283:
274:
265:
253:
241:
232:
220:
211:
190:
164:
138:
137:
135:
132:
111:
108:
90:
87:
66:
63:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
366:
355:
352:
350:
347:
346:
344:
329:
327:
323:
317:
315:
311:
305:
302:
296:
293:
287:
284:
278:
275:
269:
266:
260:
258:
254:
248:
246:
242:
236:
233:
227:
225:
221:
215:
212:
200:
194:
191:
179:
173:
171:
169:
165:
153:
146:
144:
140:
133:
131:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:Ninth Circuit
109:
107:
105:
100:
96:
88:
86:
84:
80:
76:
72:
64:
62:
60:
56:
55:circuit split
51:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
21:
18:
304:
295:
286:
277:
268:
235:
214:
202:. Retrieved
193:
181:. Retrieved
155:. Retrieved
128:municipality
113:
92:
68:
52:
20:Bill Clinton
15:
44:institution
28:legislation
22:signed the
343:Categories
204:7 February
183:7 February
157:7 February
134:References
71:synagogues
40:government
17:President
36:land use
32:religion
79:secular
124:Court
95:Third
206:2012
185:2012
159:2012
120:test
114:The
97:and
93:The
73:the
345::
325:^
313:^
256:^
244:^
223:^
167:^
142:^
106:.
208:.
187:.
161:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.