United States Ninth Circuit

A local government's denial of a religious group's application for a conditional use permit to construct a temple on a parcel of land zoned "agricultural" constituted a "substantial burden" under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the government failed to prove compelling interests for its action. Further, the relevant portion of RLUIPA is a permissible exercise of Congress's remedial power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/17/2005
• Decided 08/01/2006
• Published 08/01/2006

Judges

• BEA, Circuit Judge:, Before: D.W. NELSON, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• R. Alexander Acosta, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Eric W. Treene & Sarah E. Harrington, Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, D.C., for intervenor and amicus United States., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, New York, NY, for amici The Anti-Defamation League, et al.


• For Appellees:
  
• Jeffrey T. Melching & John A. Ramirez, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for the defendants-appellants., Michael R. Barrette, Yuba City, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee., Jennifer B. Henning, Sacramento, CA, for amici California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities in support of the defendants-appellants., Roman P. Storzer, Anthony Picarello Jr. & Derek L. Gaubatz, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, D.C., in support of the plaintiff-appellee.