About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

76 Wash. L. Rev. 1255 (2001)
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: An Analysis under the Commerce Clause

handle is hein.journals/washlr76 and id is 1267 raw text is: Copyright 0 2001 by Washington Law Review Association THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT: AN ANALYSIS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE Evan M. Shapiro Abstract: Congress based the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) on accumulated evidence suggesting that the land use decisions of local governments unfairly burden religious uses. The RLUIPA is narrower in scope than two previous statutes aimed at protecting religious liberty. The United States Supreme Court held the first of these religious liberty statutes unconstitutional, and Congress failed to enact the other. This Comment examines the constitutionality of the RLUIPA under the Commerce Clause and argues that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause authority because (1) land use regulation does not constitute economic activity as defined by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison and (2) land use regulation is insufficiently connected to interstate commerce. Congress has recognized that religious institutions are often overly burdened by local land use decisions. For example, a local ordinance might limit the size of houses of worship in commercial or residential zones.' Congress determined that such zoning laws often facially discriminate against religion, and that zoning boards may apply neutral zoning laws discriminatorily.' As a remedy, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), in part, to protect religious institutions from local governments' land use decisions.3 The RLUIPA prohibits local governments from substantially burdening religion with their land use determinations unless the local regulation furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest.4 Congress's authority to enact legislation is limited and must be based on a constitutionally granted power.5 Congress based its authority to 1. See Eric Pryne, Fimia Crafting Own Plan To Limit Rural Churches, SEATTLE TIMES, June 2, 2001, atB1. 2. H.R. REP. NO. 106-219, at 18-24 (1999). 3. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to cc-5 (2000). The RLUIPA also protects institutionalized persons' right to freely exercise their religion. See id. However, this Comment discusses only the land use portion of the law. 4. Id. § 2000cc(a)(1). 5. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549,552 (1995) (quoting The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-93 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961)). 1255

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most