United States Third Circuit

A religious plaintiff under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act's (RLUIPA) Equal Terms Provision need not show that a challenged land-use regulation imposes a "substantial burden" on its religious exercise, but they must identify a better-treated secular comparator that is similarly situated in regard to the objectives of the challenged regulation. The Equal Terms provision operates on a strict liability standard, and strict scrutiny does not come into play. Thus, if a land-use regulation treats religious institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions that are no less harmful to the governmental objectives in enacting the regulation, that regulation, without more, fails under RLUIPA.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/27/2007
• Decided 11/27/2007
• Published 11/27/2007

Judges

• Before:  FISHER, JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Derek L. Gaubatz, Esquire, (Argued), Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., Esquire, Lori Halstead, Esquire, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, D.C., Michael S. Kasanoff, Esquire, Red Bank, NJ, for Appellants., Wan J. Kim, Esquire, (Argued), Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Esquire, Nathaniel S. Pollock, Esquire, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Appellant Section, Washington, D.C., for Amicus-Appellant USA., Paul J. Zidlicky, Esquire, David S. Petron, Esquire, Jason C.R. Oraker, Esquire, Jeffrey I. Shulman, Esquire, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus-Appellants Association of Christian Schools and International and General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists.


• For Appellees:
  
• Audrey J. Copeland, Esquire, (Argued), Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, King of Prussia, PA, Howard B. Mankoff, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Roseland, NJ, for Appellees.