U.S. DEPTARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION:
Statement of the Department of Justice on the Land Use Provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA):
rluipa_qas_footnoted_version_508
Title 42–the Public Health And Welfare
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002]
[CITE: 42USC2000cc]
CHAPTER 21C–PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE IN LAND USE AND BY INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS
§2000cc. Protection of land use as religious exercise
(a) Substantial burdens
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(2) Scope of application
This subsection applies in any case in which—
(A) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability;
(B) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
(C) the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.
(b) Discrimination and exclusion
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that—
(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.§2000cc–1. Protection of religious exercise of institutionalized persons
(a) General rule
No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 of this title, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(b) Scope of application
This section applies in any case in which—
(1) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance; or (2) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes.§2000cc–2. Judicial relief
(a) Cause of action
A person may assert a violation of this chapter as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
(b) Burden of persuasion
If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of section 2000cc of this title, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on any element of the claim, except that the plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on whether the law (including a regulation) or government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff’s exercise of religion.
(c) Full faith and credit
Adjudication of a claim of a violation of section 2000cc of this title in a non-Federal forum shall not be entitled to full faith and credit in a Federal court unless the claimant had a full and fair adjudication of that claim in the non-Federal forum.(d) Omitted
(e) Prisoners
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (including provisions of law amended by that Act).
(f) Authority of United States to enforce this chapter The United States may bring an action for injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce compliance with this chapter. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to deny, impair, or otherwise affect any right or authority of the Attorney General, the United States, or any agency, officer, or employee of the United States, acting under any law other than this subsection, to institute or intervene in any proceeding.
(g) Limitation
If the only jurisdictional basis for applying a provision of this chapter is a claim that a substantial burden by a government on religious exercise affects, or that removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, the provision shall not apply if the government demonstrates that all substantial burdens on, or the removal of all substantial burdens from, similar religious exercise throughout the Nation would not lead in the aggregate to a substantial effect on commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes.
§2000cc–3. Rules of construction
(a) Religious belief unaffected
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.(b) Religious exercise not regulated
Nothing in this chapter shall create any basis for restricting or burdening religious exercise or for claims against a religious organization including any religiously affiliated school or university, not acting under color of law.
(c) Claims to funding unaffected
Nothing in this chapter shall create or preclude a right of any religious organization to receive funding or other assistance from a government, or of any person to receive government funding for a religious activity, but this chapter may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.
(d) Other authority to impose conditions on funding unaffected Nothing in this chapter shall—
(1) authorize a government to regulate or affect, directly or indirectly, the activities or policies of a person other than a government as a condition of receiving funding or other assistance; or
(2) restrict any authority that may exist under other law to so regulate or affect, except as provided in this chapter.
(e) Governmental discretion in alleviating burdens on religious exercise
A government may avoid the preemptive force of any provision of this chapter by changing the policy or practice that results in a substantial burden on religious exercise, by retaining the policy or practice and exempting the substantially burdened religious exercise, by providing exemptions from the policy or practice for applications that substantially burden religious exercise, or by any other means that eliminates the substantial burden.
(f) Effect on other law
With respect to a claim brought under this chapter, proof that a substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise affects, or removal of that burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, shall not establish any inference or presumption that Congress intends that any religious exercise is, or is not, subject to any law other than this chapter.
(g) Broad construction
This chapter shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.
(h) No preemption or repeal
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preempt State law, or repeal Federal law, that is equally as protective of religious exercise as, or more protective of religious exercise than, this chapter.
(i) Severability
If any provision of this chapter or of an amendment made by this chapter, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this chapter, the amendments made by this chapter, and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.
§2000cc–4. Establishment Clause unaffected
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion (referred to in this section as the “Establishment Clause”). Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. In this section, the term “granting”, used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
§2000cc–5. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) Claimant
The term “claimant” means a person raising a claim or defense under this chapter.
(2) Demonstrates
The term “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
(3) Free Exercise Clause
The term “Free Exercise Clause” means that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution that proscribes laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
(4) Government
The term “government”—
(A) means—
(i) a State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity created under the authority of a State;
(ii) any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of an entity listed in clause (i); and
(iii) any other person acting under color of State law; and
(B) for the purposes of sections 2000cc–2 (b) and 2000cc–3 of this title, includes the United States, a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of the United States, and any other person acting under color of Federal law.
(5) Land use regulation
The term “land use regulation” means a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant’s use or development of land (including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest.
(6) Program or activity
The term “program or activity” means all of the operations of any entity as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 2000d–4a of this title.(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
(B) Rule
The use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose.
>
Summary
The Section enforces the “institutionalized persons” provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. These provisions recognize the crucial role religion plays in the rehabilitation of prisoners and in the lives of those who are institutionalized, and they require that state and local institutions not place arbitrary or unnecessary restrictions on religious practice. “Institutions” include prisons, jails, pretrial detention facilities, juvenile facilities, and institutions housing persons with disabilities when these facilities controlled by or provide services on behalf of State or local governments.
Since Congress passed RLUIPA in 2000, the Section has opened more than a dozen investigations and made numerous informal inquiries to State and local governments. The Section is often able to change restrictions on religious exercise before formally investigating or filing in court under RLUIPA’s “safe harbor” provision. The safe harbor provision lets governments avoid court action by changing their policy or practice or otherwise lifting the burden on religious exercise. This is efficient and effective. It can help protect institutionalized persons from negative health effects or discipline that may follow their efforts to honor their religious tradition.
When necessary, the Section will sue to protect the religious rights of individuals in institutions. Over the past few years, the Section has sued in three cases and has filed a Statements of Interest explaining the law in five cases filed by other parties. The Section also works closely with the Appellate Section to file amicus curiae briefs that explain how RLUIPA should apply in cases before the federal appellate courts. The links below include several of our briefs, and guidance we issued on the Tenth Anniversary of RLUIPA: “Statement of the Department of Justice on the Institutionalized Persons Provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.”
Examples of our Work with People Seeking the Freedom to Worship in Institutions
Diet: In some cases, our enforcement is critical to protecting the health and safety of institutionalized persons, in addition to promoting their rehabilitation and connection to the community. For example, in several cases individuals have been denied a diet that is consistent with their religious practices. There can be serious health consequences when a person refuses to eat because the food available violates the person’s religious beliefs. We often can address restrictions on religious exercise informally by working with State or local officials to ensure that the individual’s health is monitored and that an appropriate diet is provided. In other cases, we must investigate or sue before inmates are allowed to exercise their religious beliefs. For example, after we opened an investigation of a Utah prison, the prison gave vegan meals to an inmate to accommodate his Hindu faith. Similarly, a nursing home in New York agreed to train its staff members so that Sikh residents’ religious practices, including an appropriate diet, are honored. Even after an investigation, some jurisdictions refuse to provide an appropriate diet. We are currently suing a state that refuses to give most of its Jewish prisoners a kosher diet.
Hair Length: Sukhjinder Basra is a lifelong practitioner of the Sikh faith. As an observant Sikh, he must keep is hair unshorn, including facial hair. Sikhs believe that cutting one’s hair is a grievous sin. Mr. Basra has always maintained uncut hair. While Mr. Basra was in medium-security prison, he was allowed to keep his beard without any restriction on its length. After he was transferred to a minimum-security prison, however, he was repeatedly disciplined because of his religiously-based refusal to trim his beard. We joined Mr. Basra’s lawsuit, and the State ultimately repealed its regulation requiring Mr. Basra to trim his beard.
Religious Texts: The Berkeley County Detention Center banned a wide array of books, publications, and religious and educational materials, including the Washington Post, USA Today, the Koran, and Our Daily Bread, a widely-used Christian devotional. The Division joined an existing lawsuit against the sheriff’s office, arguing that this ban violated the First Amendment and RLUIPA. The case eventually settled, and we obtained a consent injunction. Now, prisoners in the detention center can receive a variety of publications and religious materials.
For further information, follow the links below:
- Cases and Matters
- Report on the Twentieth Anniversary of RLUIPA
- Statement on the Institutionalized Persons Provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2017)
- Appellate Briefs Filed by the Department of Justice
- United States v. Florida Department of Corrections (11th Cir.) – Brief as Appellee
- Native American Council of Tribes, et al. v. Weber, et al. (8th Cir.) – Brief as Amicus
- Knight v. Thompson (11th Cir.) – Brief as Amicus
- Garner v. Kennedy (5th Cir.) – Brief as Amicus
- Thunderhorse v. Pierce (S. Ct.) – Brief as Amicus
- Khatib v. County of Orange (9th Cir.) – Brief as Amicus
- Nelson v. Miller (7th Cir.) – Brief as Amicus
The land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws (for information on RLUIPA’s institutionalized persons provisions, please refer to the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section).
View a five-page color brochure on RLUIPA, Information About Federal Religious Land Use Protections.
A detailed Statement of the Department of Justice on the Land Use Provisions of RLUIPA with Questions and Answers (June 13, 2018), is available here (for a version of the Questions and Answers document with full legal citations, click here).
Religious assemblies, especially smaller or unfamiliar ones, may be illegally discriminated against on the face of zoning codes and also in the highly individualized and discretionary processes of land use regulation. Zoning codes and landmarking laws may illegally exclude religious assemblies in places where they permit theaters, meeting halls, and other places where large groups of people assemble for secular purposes. Or the zoning codes or landmarking laws may permit religious assemblies only with individualized permission from the zoning board or landmarking commissions, and zoning boards or landmarking commission may use that authority in illegally discriminatory ways.
To address these concerns, RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches or other religious assemblies or institutions absent the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. This prohibition applies in any situation where: (i) the state or local government entity imposing the substantial burden receives federal funding; (ii) the substantial burden affects, or removal of the substantial burden would affect, interstate commerce; or (iii) the substantial burden arises from the state or local government’s formal or informal procedures for making individualized assessments of a property’s uses. In addition, RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that:
(1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies or institutions;
(2) discriminate against any assemblies or institutions on the basis of religion or religious denomination;
(3) totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.
The Department of Justice can investigate alleged RLUIPA violations and bring a lawsuit to enforce the statute. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief. Individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions can also bring a lawsuit in federal or state court to enforce RLUIPA.
The Department of Justice issued a Report on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) (September 2020)
The Department of Justice issued a Report on the Tenth Anniversary of RLUIPA in 2010, and an Update on RLUIPA Enforcement in 2016.
The legislative history of RLUIPA is available here.
On December 15, 2016, the Civil Rights Division sent a letter about RLUIPA’s requirements to mayors and other local officials that includes examples of cases and other resources.