313.859.6000 info@daltontomich.com
Detroit and Chicago

Religious Land Use and Zoning Leaders

National RLUIPA Experience to Help You Grow

Connect with a
RLUIPA Attorney

Religious Land Use and Zoning Resources

Spread the love

Dalton & Tomich, PLC has helped churches and other institutions win religious land use and zoning cases from California to New Jersey and Michigan to Florida. As the national leader in defending the rights of churches under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), we are pleased to offer this page as an access point for church land use and zoning case studies, blogs, legal information and other resources.

There is no single and correct way to tabulate a compilation of RLUIPA's case law in the land use context. Many land use disputes are settled before litigation ever becomes necessary, and many more are settled at varying stages of litigation.

Daniel P. Dalton has compiled a downloadable history of RLUIPA Case Litigation Land Use Decisions.    Download Now

This compilation excludes settlements (with exception, see below) because many are untraceable and partial inclusion would distort the success rate of religious organizations. Instead, this compilation focuses centrally on the success rates of religious organization plaintiffs in their claims on the merits.

The success rates below are therefore not completely indicative of a religious organization's actual likeliness of achieving success in pursuing legal remedy; relief can be and often is obtained through mediation that may not involve the final decision of a court on the merits of a claim. A typical religious organization therefore has a likelihood of obtaining relief above and beyond the success rates below. The success rates and chronological listing of cases nonetheless provide illustration of court assessments of RLUIPA in practice over the statute's first fifteen years of existence, subject to the following methodological stipulations:

  • A favorable ruling refers to a ruling on the merits in favor of a religious organization, a jury verdict in favor of a religious organization followed by settlement, remand on the merits in favor of a religious organization followed by settlement, or the granting of an injunction or temporary restraining order in favor of a religious organization.
  • Disputes settled before a jury verdit, grant of injunction or temporary restraining order, or ruling on the merits have been excluded.
  • A pleading is justiciable if a plaintiff has standing and its claim is ripe and not moot. Justiciability is emphasized in this compilation and treated as distinct from jurisdictional considerations because of the prevalence of standing concerns in land use litigation.
  • A claim was pled but later precluded by the court because another claim was successful is considered a claim not pled.

Law Review

Magazine Articles

Daniel P. Dalton has compiled a list of Leading RLUIPA Land Use Law Review and Journal Articles. A printable list is available here. The articles also are listed below.

2015

  • Robert Banas, RLUIPA: How Equality and Fairness in Land Use Regulations Do Not Always Coexist, 16 RUTGERS JOURNAL OF LAW AND RELIGION 360 (2015)
  • Daniel P. Dalton, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act - Recent Decisions and Developments, 47 Urb. Law Vol. 3, p. 420 (2015)
  • Evan J. Seeman, Finding Salvation in Religious Law’s Safe Harbor; Municipal Governments Can Take Steps to Mitigate RLUIPA Claims, 41 CONNECTICUT LAW TRIBUNE 1 (2015)
  • George P. Smith, II & Philip M. Donoho, RLUIPA: Re-Aligning Burdens of Proof, Clarifying Freedoms, and Re-Defining Responsibilities 18 NYU JOURNAL OF LEGISLATION AND PUBLIC POLICY 67 (2015)

2014

  • Ryan M. Budd, Apples to Apples: Yes, There Is (Or Can Be!) A Unified Approach to RLUIPA Ripeness, 46 URBAN LAWYER 783 (2014)
  • Daniel P. Dalton, Recent Developments in RLUIPA and Religious Land Use, 46 URBAN LAWYER 849 (2014)
  • Daniel Mazzella, We’re on a Mission from God: Properly Interpreting RLUIPA’s “Equal Terms” Provision, 86 ST. JOHN’S LAW REVIEW 715 (2014)
  • Evan J. Seeman, RLUIPA Defense Tactics; How to Avoid & Defend Against RLUIPA Claims, 37 ZONING AND PLANNING LAW REPORT 1 (2014)

2013

  • Robert M. Bernstein, Abandoning the Use of Abstract Formulations in Interpreting RLUIPA’s Substantial Burden Provision in Religious Land Use Cases, 36 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW & ARTS 283 (2013)
  • Daniel P. Dalton, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act – Recent Decisions and Developments, 45 URBAN LAWYER 741 (2013)
  • Ryan M. Lore, When Religion and Land Use Regulations Collide: Interpreting the Application of RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision, 46 UC DAVIS LAW REVIEW 1339 (2013)
  • Brian K. Mosley, Zoning Religion Out of the Public Square: Constitutional Avoidance and Conflicting Interpretations of RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision, 55 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW 465 (2013)
  • Qasim Rashid, The Right to Enforce: Why RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions is a Constitutional Federal Enforcement Power, 16 RICHMOND JOURNAL OF LAW AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST 267 (2013)
  • Carolyn Ann Warner, Zone of Oppression: Why the Unpredictable Application of a Federal Law Threatens Religious Liberty, 16 JOURNAL OF GENDER, RACE & JUSTICE 635 (2013)

2012

  • Andrew Cleves, Equal Terms: What Does It Mean and How Does It Work: Interpreting the Equal Terms Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 80 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW 209 (2012)
  • Daniel P. Dalton, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: Recent Developments in RLUIPA’s Land Use Jurisprudence, 44 Urb. Law Vol. 3, p. 647 (2012)
  • Nurudeen Elias, America’s Religious Values at Crossroads: Lighting the Veil on Zoning Decisions to Ensure Victory for the America of the Constitution and Religious Tolerance, 55 HOWARD LAW JOURNAL 1097 (2012)
  • Katie M. Ertmer, Individualized vs. Generalized Assessments: Why RLUIPA Should Not Apply to Every Land-Use Request, 62 DUKE LAW JOURNAL 79 (2012)
  • Marci A. Hamilton, RLUIPA Is a Bridge Too Far: Inconvenience Is Not Discrimination, 39 FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL 959 (2012)
  • John Infranca, Institutional Free Exercise and Religious Land Use, 34 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 1693 (2012)
  • Douglas Laycock & Luke W. Goodrich, RLUIPA: Necessary, Modest, and Under-Enforced, 39 FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL 1021 (2012)
  • Tokufumi Noda, The Role of Economics in the Discourse on RLUIPA and the Nondiscrimination in Religious Land Use, 53 BOSTON COLLEGE LAW REVIEW 1089 (2012)
  • Charis G. Orzechowski, A Non-Intent Based Challenge to Exclusionary Zoning: Why RLUIPA Can Help One Religious Community When Constitutional Challenges Fail, 40 RUTGERS LAW RECORD 1 (2012)
  • Jason Z. Pesick, RLUIPA: What’s the Use, 17 MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF RACE AND LAW 359 (2012)
  • Eric Treene, RLUIPA and Mosques: Enforcing a Fundamental Right in Challenging Times, 10 FIRST AMENDMENT LAW REVIEW 330 (2012)
  • Thomas E. Raccuia, RLUIPA and Exclusionary Zoning: Government Defendants Should Have the Burden of Persuasion in Equal Terms Cases, 80 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1853 (2012)
  • Peter T. Reed, What Are Equal Terms Anyway?, 87 NOTRE DAME LAW REVIEW 1313 (2012)
  • Jaron A. Robinson, Land, Libations, and Liberty: RLUIPA and the Specter of Liquor Control Laws, 49 IDAHO LAW REVIEW 157 (2012)
  • Bethany Lowe Rupert, Amending and Interpreting the Equal Terms Provision of RLUIPA: Finding the Role of Congress in a Sea of Judicial Interpretation, 23 CIVIL RIGHTS LAW JOURNAL 73 (2012)
  • Alan C. Weinstein, The Effect of RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions on Local Governments, 39 FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL 1221 (2012)

2011

  • Andrew Cleves, Equal Terms: What Does It Mean and How Does It Work: Interpreting the Equal Terms Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 80 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW 179 (2011)
  • Daniel D. Crean, Religious Freedom and Land Use Regulation – It’s Not All About RLUIPA, 48 MUNICIPAL LAWYER 24 (2011)
  • Daniel P. Dalton, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act – Recent Developments, 43 Urb. Law Vol. 3, p. 853 (2011)
  • James C. Dunkelberger, Missed Opportunity or Dodged Bullet? The Tenth Circuit’s Non-decision in Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of County Commissioners, 2011 BYU LAW REVIEW 99 (2011)
  • Sean Foley, RLUIPA’s Equal-Terms Provision’s Troubling Definition of Equal: Why the Equal-Terms Provision Must be Interpreted Narrowly, 60 KANSAS LAW REVIEW 193 (2011)
  • Andrew Glover, The Pit and the Pendulum: How Far Can RLUIPA Go in Protecting the Amish?, 19 PENN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW 109 (2011)
  • Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, The Forms and Limits of Religious Accommodation: The Case of RLUIPA, 32 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 1907 (2011)
  • Yusuf Z. Malik, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: A Perspective on the Unreasonable Limitations Provision, 78 TENNESSEE LAW REVIEW 531 (2011)
  • Tokufumi J. Noda, Annual Survey of Federal En Banc and Other Significant Cases: Seventh Circuit: Incommensurable Uses: RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision and Exclusionary Zoning in River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, 52 BOSTON COLLEGE LAW REVIEW 71 (2011)
  • Kelli Stout, Tent Cities and RLUIPA: How a New Religious-Land-Use Issue Aggravates RLUIPA, 41 SETON HALL LAW REVIEW 465 (2011)
  • Alex R. Whitted, Park51 as a Case Study: Testing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 45 INDIANA LAW REVIEW 249 (2011)
  • Kellen Zale, God’s Green Earth? The Environmental Impacts of Religious Land Use, 64 MAINE LAW REVIEW 207 (2011)
  • Anthony C. Zecca, Jr., A Decade Since 9/11: Religious Land Use Discrimination and the Continued Need for Protective Judicial Mechanisms Under RLUIPA, 21 TEMPLE POLITICAL & CIVIL RIGHTS LAW REVIEW 275 (2011)

2010

  • Bram Alden, Reconsidering RLUIPA: Do Religious Land Use Protections Really Benefit Religious Land Users?, 57 UCLA LAW REVIEW 1779 (2010)
  • Daniel P. Dalton, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act – Recent Developments, 42 Urb. Law Vol. 3, p. 561 (2010)
  • Adam J. MacLeod, A Non-Fatal Collision: Where Religious Land Uses and Community Interests Meet, 42 URBAN LAWYER 41 (2010)
  • Tyler F. Mark, Rocky Mountain Shootout: Free Exercise & Preserving the Open Range, 98 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL 1859 (2010)
  • Anthony Lazzaro Minervini, Freedom from Religion: RLUIPA, Religious Freedom, and Representative Democracy on Trial, 158 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 571 (2010)
  • Heather M. Welch, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and Mega-Churches: Demonstrating the Limits of Religious Land Use Exemptions in Federal Legislation, 39 UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW REVIEW 255 (2010)
  • Paul D. Wilson & Noah C. Shaw, The Judge As Cartoon Character Whose Hat Flies into the Air: The “Shocks the Conscience” Standard in Recent Substantive Due Process Land Use Litigation, 42 URBAN LAWYER 677 (2010)

2009

  • Aaron K. Block, When money is Tight, is Strict Scrutiny Loose?: Cost Sensitivity as a Compelling Governmental Interest Under the Religious land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 14 TEXAS JOURNAL ON CIVIL LIBERTIES & CIVIL RIGHTS 237 (2009)
  • Vikki Bollettino, The Quest for Congruence: Why the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Should Apply to Eminent Domain, 39 SETON HALL LAW REVIEW 1263 (2009)
  • Sarah Keeton Campbell, Restoring RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision, 58 DUKE LAW JOURNAL 1071 (2009)
  • Angela C. Carmella, RLUIPA: Linking Religion, Land Use, Ownership and the Common Good,2 ALBANY GOVERNMENT LAW REVIEW 485 (2009)
  • Karla L. Chaffee & Dwight H. Merriam, Si Fact Patterns of Substantial Burden in RLUIPA: Lessons for Potential Litigants, 2 ALBANY GOVERNMENT LAW REVIEW 437 (2009)
  • Terry M. Crist, Equally Confused: Construing RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision, 41 ARIZONA STATE LAW JOURNAL 1139 (2009)
  • Daniel P. Dalton, Defining “Appropriate Relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: the Availability of Damages and Injunctive Relief with RLUIPA, 2 ALBANY GOVERNMENT LAW REVIEW 604 (2009)
  • Andrew M. Englander, God and land in the Garden State: The Impact of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in New Jersey, 61 RUTGERS LAW REVIEW 753 (2009)
  • Marci A. Hamilton, The Constitutional Limitations on Congress’s Power Over Local land Use: Why The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Is Unconstitutional, 2 ALBANY GOVERNMENT LAW REVIEW 366 (2009)
  • Misha C. Jacob-Warren, A Circuit Split: Interpretation of the Equal Terms Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 34 SETON HALL LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL 57 (2009)
  • Wendie L. Kellington, God and the Land: Thoughts About Land Use Controls and Religious Freedom in the American Legal System, 2 ALBANY GOVERNMENT LAW REVIEW 537 (2009)
  • Matthias Kleinsasser, RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision and the Split Between the Eleventh and Third Circuits, 29 REVIEW OF LITIGATION 163 (2009)
  • Kenneth G. Leonczyk, Jr., RLUIPA and Eminent Domain: How a Plain Reading of a Flawed Statute Creates an Absurd Result, 13 TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS 311 (2009)
  • Elizabeth Reilly, Empathy and Pragmatism in the Choice of Constitutional Norms for Religious Land Use Disputes, 2 ALBANY GOVERNMENT LAW REVIEW 555 (2009)
  • Patricia E. Salkin & Amy Lavine, God and the Land: A Holy War Between Religious Exercise and Community Planning and Development 2 ALBANY GOVERNMENT LAW REVIEW 8 (2009)
  • Shelley Ross Saxer, Assessing RLUIPA’s Application to Building Codes and Aesthetic Land Use Regulation, 2 ALBANY GOVERNMENT LAW REVIEW 623 (2009)
  • Christopher Serkin & Nelson Tebbe, Condemning Religion: RLUIPA and the Politics of Eminent Domain, 85 NOTRE DAME LAW REVIEW 1 (2009)
  • Sara Witt, Modifying the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to Create a Constitutional Statutory Protection for Religious Landowners, 59 CASE WESTERN LAW REVIEW 767 (2009)

2008

  • Karen L. Antos, A Higher Authority: How the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Affects State Control Over Religious Land Use Conflicts, 35 BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW 557 (2008)
  • Matthew Baker, RLUIPA and Eminent Domain: Probing the Boundaries of Religious Land Use Protection, 2008 BYU LAW REVIEW 1213 (2008)
  • Daniel P. Dalton, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Update, 40 URBAN LAWYER 603 (2008)
  • Jennifer S. Evans-Cowley & Kenneth Pearlman, Six Flags over Jesus: RLUIPA, Megachurches, and Zoning, 21 TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL 203 (2008)
  • Cristina Finetti, Limiting the Scope of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: Why RLUIPA Should Not Be Amended to Regulated Eminent Domain Actions Against Religious Property, 38 SETON HALL LAW REVIEW 667 (2008)
  • Samuel A. Green, The Intersection of Zoning Regulations, Religious House Meetings, and the Constitution, 48 WASHBURN LAW JOURNAL 133 (2008)
  • Daniel N. Lerman, Taking the Temple: Eminent Domain and the Limits of RLUIPA, 96 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL 2057 (2008)
  • Dwight Merriam, One (1) Ounce of RLUIPA Prevention, 49 MUNICIPAL LAWYER 11 (2008)
  • Ashira Pelman Ostrow, Judicial Review of Local Land Use Decisions: Lessons from RLUIPA, 31 HARVARD JOURNAL OR LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 717 (2008)
  • Patricia E. Salkin & Amy Lavine, The Genesis of RLUIPA and Federalism: Evaluating the Creation of a Federal Statutory Right and Its Impact on Local Government, 40 URBAN LAWYER 195 (2008)
  • Shelley Ross Saxer, Faith in Action: Religious Accessory Uses and Land Use Regulation, 2008 UTAH LAW REVIEW 593 (2008)
  • Allison Scaduto, RLUIPA as a Possible Shield from the Government Taking of Religious Property, 38 SETON HALL LAW REVIEW 823 (2008)
  • Tyson Tamashiro, RLUIPA and the Individualized Assessment: Special Use Permits and Variances Under Strict Congressional Scrutiny, 31 HAWAII LAW REVIEW 257 (2008)
  • Alan C. Weinstein, How to Avoid a “Holy War”– Dealing with Potential RLUIPA Claims, 60 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 3 (2008)

2007

  • Graham Billingsley & Dwight Merriam, Successful Planning and Regulation in the Shadow of RLUIPA, 59 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 6 (2007)
  • Stephen Clowney, An Empirical Look at Churches in the Zoning Process, 116 YALE LAW JOURNAL 859 (2007)
  • Daniel P. Dalton, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and the Religious Land use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Zoning and Planning Law Report, West Pub., Vol. 31, No. 7 p. 1
  • Marci A. Hamilton, A Response to Professor Laycock, 105 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 1189 (2007)
  • Douglas Laycock, A Syllabus of Errors, 105 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 1169 (2007) (reviewing Marci A. Hamilton, God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (2005))
  • Luke Meier, A Second-Class Constitutional Right? Free Exercise and the Current State of Religious Freedom in the United States: RLUIPA and Congressional Intent, 70 ALBANY LAW REVIEW 1435 (2007)
  • Religious Land Use in the Federal Courts Under RLUIPA, 120 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 2178 (2007)

2006

  • Sara C. Galvan, Beyond Worship: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 and Religious Institutions’ Auxiliary Uses 24 YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW 205 (2006)
  • Jeffrey H. Goldfien, Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor: RLUIPA and the Mediation of Religious Land Use Disputes, 2006 JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION 435 (2006)
  • Nicole Guillet, Religious Freedom – RLUIPA, 35 STETSON LAW REVIEW 649 (2006)
  • Nicholas William Haddad, Public Use or Private Benefit? The Post-Kelo Intersection of Religious Land Use and the Public Use Doctrine, 75 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1105 (2006)
  • Daniel Kirkpatrick, Zoned Secular: Seattle’s Prohibition of New Religious Facilities in Industrial Zones Violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act’s “Equal Terms” Rule, 81 WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 191 (2006)
  • Andrew Koppelman, Is It Fair to Give Religion Special Treatment?, 2006 ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW 571 (2006)
  • Daniel P. Lennington, Thou Shalt Not Zone: The Overbroad Applications and Troubling Implications of RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions, 29 SEATTLE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 805 (2006)
  • G. David Mathues, Shadow of a Bulldozer?: RLUIPA and Eminent Domain After Kelo, 81 NOTRE DAME LAW REVIEW 1653 (2006)
  • Jennifer L. Monk & Robert H. Tyler, The Application of Prior Restrain: An Alternative Doctrine for Religious Land Use Cases, 37 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LAW REVIEW 747 (2006)
  • Christina Harrison Schnizler, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 and Its Effect on Eleventh Circuit Law, 57 MERCER LAW REVIEW 1261 (2006)

2005

  • David L. Abney, Religion and Housing for the Homeless: Using the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use Act to Convert Religious Faith into Safe, Affordable Housing, 8 ST. MARY’S LAW REVIEW ON MINORITY ISSUES 1 (2005)
  • Roland F. Chase, Zoning Regulation of Religious Activities: The Impact of Federal Law, 54 RHODE ISLAND BAR JOURNAL 5 (2005)
  • Benjamin D. Cramer, Can Congress Buy RLUIPA’s Way to Constitutional Salvation?, 55 CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW 1073 (2005)
  • Noelle V. Crisalli, Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. Chicago: A Defining Case for the Substantial Burden Test Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 23 PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW 263 (2005)
  • Ariel Graff, Calibrating the Balance of Free Exercise, Religious Establishment, and Land Use Regulation: Is RLUIPA an Unconstitutional Response to an Overstated Problem? 53 UCLA LAW REVIEW 485 (2005)
  • Aaron Keesler, Religious Land-Use and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Enforcement Clause: How the FMLA Paved the Way to the RLUIPA’s Constitutionality, 3 AVE MARIA LAW REVIEW 315 (2005)
  • Kristin E. Kruse, Eleventh Circuit Broadly Interprets Religious land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 to Leave Local Governments Nearly Powerless to Zone Houses of Worship, 58 SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 465 (2005)
  • Corey Mertes, God’s Little Acre: Religious Land Use and the Separation of Church and State, 74 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS LAW REVIEW 221 (2005)
  • Mark Spykerman, When God and Costco Battle for a City’s Soul: Can the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Fairly Adjudicate Both Sides in Land Use Disputes? 18 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW & POLICY 291 (2005)

2004

  • Lara A. Berwanger, White Knight? Can the Commerce Clause Save the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act?, 72 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 2355 (2004)
  • Stephen A. Haller, On Sacred Ground: Exploring Congress’s Attempts to Rein in Discriminatory State Zoning Practices, 33 SOUTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW 285 (2004)
  • G. Stephen Lowery, Ten Paces and Shoot: An Attempt to Make Sense of the Escalating Feud and Imminent Showdown Over the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 35 CUMBERLAND LAW REVIEW 415 (2004)
  • Julie M. Osborn, RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions: Congress’ Unconstitutional Response to City of Boerne, 28 ENVIRONS: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY JOURNAL 155 (2004)
  • Christine M. Peluso, Congressional Intent v. Judicial Reality: The Practical Effects of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 6 RUTGERS JOURNAL OF LAW AND RELIGION 5 (2004)
  • Kevin M. Powers, The Sword and the Shield: RLUIPA and the New Battle Ground of Religious Freedom, 22 BUFFALO PUBLIC INTEREST LAW JOURNAL 145 (2004)
  • Marc Rohr, And Congress Said, “Let There Be Religious Land Use”: A RLUIPA Primer, 78 FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL 18 (2004)
  • Shelley Ross Saxer, Eminent Domain Actions Targeting First Amendment Land Uses, 69 MISSOURI LAW REVIEW 653 (2004)
  • Sara Smolik, The Utility and Efficacy of the RLUIPA: Was It a Waste?, 31 BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW 723 (2004)
  • Matthew T. Sutter, Residential Religious Nuisance, RLUIPA and Sit Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas: “Like a Pig in the Parlor.”, 5 RUTGERS JOURNAL OF LAW AND RELIGION 6 (2004)
  • Alan C. Weinstein, RLUIPA: Where Are We Now? Where Are We Heading?, 58 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 3 (2004)

2003

  • Shawn P. Bailey, The Establishment Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 16 REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 53 (2003)
  • Kris Banvard, Exercise in Frustration? A New Attempt By Congress to Restore Strict Scrutiny to Governmental Burdens on Religious Practice, 31 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 279 (2003)
  • Michael Giaimo & Dwight Merriam, Church v. State, Just Pray You’re Not Sued Under the RLUIPA Statute 69 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 14 (2003)
  • Marci A. Hamilton, Federalism and the Public Good: The True Story Behind the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 78 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL 311 (2003)
  • David B. Zucco, Super-Sized with Fries: Regulating Religious Land Use in the Era of Megachurches, 88 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 416 (2003)

2002

  • Caroline R. Adams, The Constitutional Validity of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: Will RLUIPA’s Strict Scrutiny Survive the Supreme Court’s Strict Scrutiny, 70 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 2361 (2002)
  • Darren E. Carnell, Zoning Churches: Washington State Constitutional Limitations on the Application of Land Use Regulations to Religious Buildings, 25 SEATTLE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 699 (2002)
  • Joshua R. Geller, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: An Unconstitutional Exercise of Congress’s Power Under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, 6 NYU JOURNAL OF LEGISLATION AND PUBLIC POLICY 561 (2002)
  • Diane K. Hook, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: Congress’ New Twist on “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick”, 34 URBAN LAWYER 829 (2002)
  • Timothy J. Houseal, RLUIPA: Protecting Houses of Worship and Religious Liberty, 20 DELAWARE LAWYER 28 (2002)
  • Stanton K. Oishi, RFRA II: The Failure of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 25 HAWAII LAW REVIEW 131 (2002)
  • Daniel N. Price, The Constitutional Standard for Zoning Cases under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 6 TEXAS FORUM ON CIVIL LIBERTIES & CIVIL RIGHTS 365 (2002)
  • Beth Prieve, Religious Land Use Jurisprudence: The Negative Ramifications for Religious Activities in Washington After Open Door Baptist Church v. Clark County, 26 SEATTLE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 365 (2002)
  • Frank T. Santoro, Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 24 WHITTIER LAW REVIEW 493 (2002)

2001

  • Kenneth J. Brown, Establishing a Buffer Zone: The Proper Balance Between the First Amendment Religion Clauses in the Context of Neutral Zoning Regulations, 149 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 1507 (2001)
  • Shawn Jensvold, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA): A Valid Exercise of Congressional Power?, 16 BYU JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW 1 (2001)
  • Evan M. Shapiro, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: An Analysis Under the Commerce Clause, 76 WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 1255 (2001)
  • Roman P. Storzer & Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: A Constitutional Response to Unconstitutional Zoning Practices, 9 GEORGE MASON LAW REVIEW 929 (2001)
  • Ada-Marie Walsh, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: Unconstitutional and Unnecessary, 10 WILLIAM AND MARY BILL OF RIGHTS JOURNAL 189 (2001)

2000

  • John M. Smith, “Zoned for Residential Uses” – Like Prayer? Home Worship and Municipal Opposition in LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 2000 BYU LAW REVIEW 1153 (2000)
  • Robert W. Tuttle, How Firm a Foundation? Protecting Religious Land Uses After Boerne, 68 GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 861 (2000)

1999

  • Von G. Keetch & Matthew K. Richards, The Need for Legislation to Enshrine Free Exercise in the Land Use Context, 32 UC DAVIS LAW REVIEW 725 (1999)
  • Douglas Laycock, State RFRAs and Land Use Regulation, 32 UC DAVIS LAW REVIEW 755 (1999)

1998

  • Douglas Laycock, Conceptual Gulfs in City of Boerne v. Flores, 39 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW 743 (1998)
  • Helen M. Maher, Religious Freedom and Zoning, 5 BUFFALO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL 309 (1998)

1997

  • Kenneth Pearlman & Stuart Meck, Land Use Controls and RFRA: Analysis and Predictions, 2 NEXUS JOURNAL OF OPINION 127 (1997)

1996

  • William E. Nelson, The Growth of Distrust, The Emergence of Hostility Toward Government Regulation of the Economy, 25 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW 1 (1996)

1995

  • Shelley Ross Saxer, When Religion Becomes a Nuisance: Balancing Land Use and Religious Freedom When Activities of Religious Institutions Bring Outsiders into the Neighborhood, 84 KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL 507 (1995)