Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Southern District Upholds Constitutionality of RLUIPA
In one of the earliest decisions addressing the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Southern District of New York upheld the law. Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 2003 WL 22110445 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2003). Only three other courts to date have addressed the issue, including Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore, No. 01-04842, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11301 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (holding RLUIPA unconstitutional and beyond Congress's power), affirmed on reconsideration, No. 01-04842 (C.D. Cal. Filed Aug. 21, 2003); Teen Life Christian Center, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. CIV 01-1490 (2003) (upholding RLUIPA); Freedom Baptist Church of Delaware County v. Township of Middletown, 204 F. Supp.2d 857 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (upholding RLUIPA). Challenges are pending in Connecticut, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.
RLUIPA places the burden on plaintiff religious landowners to prove that there is a substantial burden on their religious exercise and then shifts the burden to the government to prove that its land use law applied to the religious landowner was passed to serve a “compelling interest” and that it is the “least restrictive means” necessary to serve that interest.
The Westchester Day School (WDS) case involves the denial by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mamaroneck (ZBA) denying a special permit application by WDS to build and renovate a Jewish day school. After finding that no Environmental Impact Statement was needed, the ZBA expressed concern about isolated issues – movement of a new building from the property line and the overall square footage of the new building. Following public hearings, however, the ZBA denied the application in toto. Westchester Day School appealed, invoking the RLUIPA.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?