Appellate Section - Religion Cases

Briefs and Opinions

• Grand v. City of University Heights (6th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred by categorically applying a finality requirement to dismiss Grand’s RLUIPA claims as unripe

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	03/31/25

• Billings v. New York State Department of Corrections (2d Cir.) - Amicus

  • The denial of a reasonable religious accommodation constitutes discrimination with respect to the “terms” or “conditions” of employment absent a showing of undue hardship

   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	01/04/23

• Holt v. Payne (8th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court committed clear error in holding that plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to show the sincerity of their religious beliefs
  • The district court’s substantial-burden analysis did not focus on the specific forms of religious exercise that plaintiffs actually seek to pursue
  • The district court improperly applied the least-restrictive-means test

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 85 F.4th 873	11/02/23
  Brief as Amicus	07/18/22

• A.M. v. French (2d Cir.) – Amicus

  • The Free Exercise Clause generally prohibits the denial of benefits on the basis of religious status
  • The district court erred in determining that A.H., her parents, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits and would not suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported 985 F.3d 165	01/15/21
  Brief as Amicus	08/19/20

• Smith v. Dozier (11th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court properly applied Holt v. Hobbs in concluding that Georgia’s inmate grooming policy is not the least restrictive means of pursuing a compelling state interest

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 13 F.4th 1319	09/22/21
  Brief as Amicus	03/16/20

• Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • The First Amendment prohibits governmental interference with ecclesiastical appointments
  • The ministerial exception extends to any employee of a religious organization who performs an important religious function
  • The ministerial exception bars respondents’ employment-discrimination claims
  • The counterarguments advanced by the court of appeals and respondents lack merit

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Judgment, reported at 140 S. Ct. 2049	07/08/20
  Brief as Amicus	02/10/20

• Patterson v. Walgreen (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • The question whether a reasonable accommodation must eliminate the religious conflict does not warrant review
  • The question whether an employer may rely on speculative hardships does not warrant review
  • The question whether to revisit Hardison’s de minimis standard warrants review

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 140 S. Ct. 685	02/24/20
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court's Invitation	12/09/19

• Thai Meditation Association of Alabama v. City of Mobile, Alabama (11th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in requiring plaintiffs to show that the defendant’s actions required them to forgo their religious beliefs
  • Factual and contextual factors considered by other circuits in determining the degree of burden on religious land-use plaintiffs may be helpful to this court

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 980 F.3d 821	11/16/20
  Brief as Amicus	10/23/19

• Carson v. Makin (1st Cir.) – Amicus

  • Trinity Lutheran compels a fresh analysis of the Free Exercise question
  • Maine’s nonsectarian-school provision violates the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 979 F.3d 21	10/29/20
  Brief as Amicus	10/07/19

• Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • Montana’s no-aid provision violates the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 140 S. Ct. 2246	06/30/20
  Brief as Amicus	09/18/19

• Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries v. Baltimore County, Maryland (4th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The district court erred in dismissing the substantial burden claim when it failed to consider the County’s complete denial of plaintiffs’ petitions to use their property for a church and when it attributed any burden to plaintiffs
  • The district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ discrimination claim because it ignored relevant allegations of procedural irregularities and public statements of community bias

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision , reported at 915 F.3d 256	02/25/19
  Brief as Amicus	07/02/18

• Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (Mont. Sup. Ct.) – Amicus

  • The Court should conclude that Rule 1 violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution
  • By targeting religious conduct for distinctive, and disadvantageous, treatment, Defendants violate the Free Exercise Clause unless they can show that the discriminatory treatment is supported by interests “of the highest order” and narrowly tailored to achieve those interests
  • Defendants have made no such showing here

   

  Document	Date
  State Court Decision, reported at 435 P.3d 603	12/12/18
  Brief as Amicus	01/18/18

• Watkins v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (11th Cir.) – Amicus

  • The State failed to demonstrate that denying plaintiff kosher meals furthers a compelling governmental interest
  • The State did not show that denying plaintiff kosher meals was the least restrictive means of conserving its resources

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 669 F. App'x 982	10/28/16
  Brief as Amicus	04/22/16

• Ali v. Quarterman (5th Cir.) – Amicus

  • Particularly after the intervening decision in Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015), the district court was not obligated to defer to prison officials' arguments that it found to be exaggerated or not credible
  • The court properly considered the less restrictive rules that Texas applies in its women's prisons and the less restrictive rules that most other state and federal prisons apply

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 822 F.3d 776	05/02/16
  Brief as Amicus	07/17/15

• United States v. Colorado City, et al. (9th Cir.) - Appellee

  • The appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as discovery orders are not final, appealable orders
  • A motion to compel is not appealable under the collateral order exception and that the case is not suitable for mandamus

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	04/15/15
  Court of Appeals Order	04/13/15
  Reply to Appellants' Response to Court's Order to Show Cause	02/19/15

• Holt v. Hobbs (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • The lower courts improperly applied the burden of proof in deference to prison officials
  • The record does not support the prison's assertions that Holt's half-inch beard would create an insurmountable administrative burden, problems with identification should he escape, and a place to hide contraband
  • The prison was required, under their burden of proof, to show unique circumstances that would prevent them from accommodating a half-inch beard where most other state prisons and all federal prisons would do so

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 135 S. Ct. 853	01/20/15
  Brief as Amicus	05/29/14

• United States v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (11th Cir.) - Appellee

  • The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the United States on its claims that defendants’ blanket denial of kosher meals and the RDP’s zero-tolerance and ten-percent rules violated RLUIPA
  • The district court acted within its discretion in permanently enjoining defendants from denying kosher meals to all prisoners with a sincere religious belief for keeping kosher and from enforcing the zero-tolerance and ten-percent rules
  • The preliminary injunction the district court issued in its December 6 Order automatically expired by statute 90 days thereafter, or on March 6, 2014
  • The injunction's expiration precludes this Court from granting specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character
  • The Court should deny appellants' motion for partial stay of the district court's order, requesting the Court delay the July 1, 2014, deadline the district court set for implementing the RDP statewide and allow a quarterly phase-in of the RDP
  • The district court's order granting the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction should be affirmed
  • The United States had moved for a preliminary injunction seeking an order requiring the appellants to provide kosher meals to all prisoners with a sincere religious belief for keeping kosher and enjoining the implementation of certain aspects of the new religious diet program that the United States asserted violated RLUIPA

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 828 F.3d 1341	07/14/16
  Brief as Appellee	02/24/16
  Court of Appeals Order, reported at 778 F.3d 1223	02/27/15
  Supplemental Letter Brief	10/01/14
  Court of Appeals Order	06/20/14
  Response in Opposition to a Motion for Partial Stay	06/17/14
  Brief as Appellee	05/21/14

• Native American Council of Tribes, et al. v. Weber, et al. (8th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Prison officials improperly relied on their own interpretation of plaintiffs' religious tenets in banning tobacco and that the district court appropriately called on them to show they considered less restrictive alternatives before they imposed the tobacco ban
  • The district court correctly relied on other prisons' policies permitting ritual tobacco when it concluded that a total tobacco ban was not the least restrictive means available for controlling contraband and ensuring prison security

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 750 F.3d 742	04/25/14
  Brief as Amicus	06/26/13

• Lubavitch v. Litchfield (2d Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court wrongly applied RLUIPA's substantial burden provision in assessing the synagogue's claims when it concluded that the historic preservation committee's system of individualized assessments was a neutral rule of general applicability
  • The district court misconstrued RLUIPA's nondiscrimination provision when it required the synagogue to identify another religious institution that was identically situated but treated more favorably, rather than inquiring more broadly as to whether there was any evidence of discrimination

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 768 F.3d 183	09/19/14
  Brief as Amicus	11/14/12

• Knight v. Thompson (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • Holt's application of RLUIPA in similar circumstances shows Alabama failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that its challenged practice is the least restrictive means of meeting its compelling interests

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 796 F.3d 1289	08/05/15
  Brief as Amicus	04/20/15
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 723 F.3d 1275 (Vacated, reported at 135 S. Ct. 1173 (S. Ct. Jan. 26, 2015), in light of Holt v. Hobbs, reported at 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015))	07/26/13
  Brief as Amicus	08/27/12

• Islamic Center of North Fulton v. City of Alpharetta (11th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court applied an overly restrictive standard to the substantial burden claim and that, under the correct standard, the Center has produced evidence that raises at least a triable issue of fact as to whether the City's denial of its application amounted to a substantial burden on religious exercise
  • The Supreme Court's decision in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252 (1977), supplies the correct framework for evaluating an RLUIPA discrimination claim
  • The district court erred when requiring the Center to point to a comparator that is "prima facie identical in all relevant respects"

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Order	12/30/13
  Brief as Amicus	06/12/12

• Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery County Council (4th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The district court misapplied RLUIPA's "substantial burden" standard in the land use context
  • Bethel raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether the County's regulation, which completely prohibits Bethel from building a church on its land, constituted a substantial burden on Bethel's religious exercise

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 706 F.3d 548	01/31/13
  Brief as Amicus	04/12/12

• Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • The city's zoning ordinance, which requires that places of worship obtain approval of the Mayor, the Board of Aldermen, and 60% of neighboring landowners, violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc
  • The court erred in finding that the church could not show any harm or substantial threat of harm where it had not yet exceeded the capacity of its current building and where the lack of space hindered the congregation's growth

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 697 F.3d 279	09/27/12
  Brief as Amicus	03/14/12

• Garner v. Kennedy (5th Cir.) - Amicus

  • TDCJ's ban on beards violates Section 3 of RLUIPA because it is not the least restrictive means of advancing the TDCJ's compelling interests in effective and economical prison security

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 713 F.3d 237	04/02/13
  Brief as Amicus	12/27/11

• Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (S. Ct.) – Respondent

  • None of the constitutional provisions from which a ministerial exception may derive - the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause and the freedom of association - precludes the application of the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA in this case

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 132 S. Ct. 694	01/11/12
  Brief for the Federal Respondent	08/02/11

• Thunderhorse v. Pierce (S. Ct.) – Amicus

  • The Fifth Circuit erred by failing to require that TDCJ explain why the less restrictive practices advocated by Thunderhorse were not feasible, or why the TDCJ’s inconsistent application of the grooming policy did not indicate that less restrictive means were possible
  • Because the courts of appeals, including the Fifth Circuit, have generally correctly applied RLUIPA’s standards, this case does not warrant plenary review, and the Court should therefore either deny the petition or, in the alternative, grant the petition and summarily reverse the Fifth Circuit

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 896	01/10/11
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court’s Invitation	12/01/10

• Khatib v. County of Orange (9th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Orange County courthouse holding facility falls within the ordinary, common meaning of the terms “jail” and “pretrial detention facility” and is thus an “institution” for purposes of CRIPA and RLUIPA

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 639 F.3d 898	03/15/11
  Brief as Amicus	10/04/10

• Sossamon v. Texas (S. Ct.) -- Amicus

  • The Court should hold the petition on the issue of damages against state officials in their official capacity pending the Court’s decision in Cardinal v. Metrish, No. 09-109, because that case provides a better vehicle for resolving the issue
  • The Court should deny the petition on the issue of damages against state officials in their individual capacities because, while the decisions below were incorrect, there is no split in the Circuits on this issue
  • RLUIPA itself specifies that “appropriate relief” may be obtained against any government that violates its terms
  • RLUIPA is a statute that “prohibits discrimination,” such that accepting federal funds waives a State’s immunity from suits to enforce it pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000d-7

   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, reported at 131 S. Ct. 1651	04/20/11
  Brief as Amicus	08/10/10
  Certiorari Granted, reported at 130 S. Ct. 3319	05/24/10
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court’s Invitation	03/18/10

• Cardinal v. Metrish (S. Ct.) - Amicus

  • Granting certiorari was warranted because the Sixth Circuit incorrectly concluded that a State that accepts federal funds does not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suits for money damages under RLUIPA
  • 42 U.S.C. 2000d-7 clearly conditions a State’s receipt of federal funds on its waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to damages suits to enforce federal anti-discrimination statutes, like RLUIPA
  • Under the Court’s Spending Clause decisions, the plain language of RLUIPA conditions the receipt of federal funds on a State’s waiver of immunity to private damages claims

   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari Denied, reported at 131 S. Ct. 2149	04/25/11
  Brief as Amicus in Response to Court’s Invitation	03/18/10

• Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma (9th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • City of Yuma’s zoning code, which permits secular membership organizations to locate in the City’s Old Town District as a matter of right but requires religious membership organizations to obtain a conditional use permit, violates RLUIPA’s equal terms provision, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(1)

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 651 F.3d 1163	07/12/11
  Brief as Amicus	08/07/09

• Nelson v. Miller (7th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The magistrate applied an erroneous standard in finding that the denial of the non-meat diet on the grounds that it was not required by Nelson’s religion did not impose a substantial burden on Nelson’s religious exercise within the meaning of that term in RLUIPA

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 570 F.3d 868	07/01/09
  Brief as Amicus	09/11/08

• Digrugilliers v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis (7th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The district court erred in concluding that the church had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its RLUIPA “equal terms” claim

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 506 F.3d 612	11/02/07
  Brief as Amicus	04/04/07

• Hollywood Community Synagogue & United States v. City of Hollywood (11th Cir.) -- Appellee

  • The district court did not err in denying appellants’ motion to intervene
  • Appellants cannot challenge the entry of the consent decree on the ground that the district court should first have held a hearing

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 254 F. App'x 769	11/20/07
  Brief as Appellee	10/25/06

• Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck (2d Cir.) -- Intervenor & Amicus

  • The district court correctly upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA
  • The district court properly concluded that defendants substantially burdened plaintiff’s religious exercise, and failed to demonstrate that the substantial burden was imposed to further a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive manner

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 504 F.3d 338	10/17/07
  Brief as Intervenor & Amicus	08/11/06

• Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch (3d Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The equal terms provision of RLUIPA does not contain a substantial burden requirement

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 510 F.3d 253	11/27/07
  Brief as Amicus	06/07/06

• Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton (2d Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Taking Faith Temple’s property pursuant to the comprehensive plan would constitute the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation under RLUIPA

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed (Appeal Withdrawn)	04/09/07
  Brief as Amicus	05/24/06

• Living Water Church of God v. Meridian Charter Township (6th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Denial of the SUP constitutes a substantial burden on the church's religious exercise
  • The Township did not use the least restrictive means to serve a compelling governmental interest

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, available at 258 F. App'x 729	12/10/07
  Brief as Amicus	03/15/06

• Bush v. Holmes (Fla. Sup. Ct.) -- Amicus

  • The Florida Court of Appeals erred in holding that Locke v. Davey barred appellants' Free Exercise Clause claim
  • This court's doctrine of constitutional avoidance suggests that this court should maintain its prior construction of the no-aid provision and uphold the scholarship program

   

  Document	Date
  Florida Supreme Court Decision, reported at 919 So.2d 392	01/05/06
  Brief as Amicus	01/24/05

• Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries v. Glover (9th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The County engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by denying Faith Center equal access to the Antioch meeting rooms
  • There is no practical or constitutionally permissible basis to distinguish worship from religious viewpoints in a broadly defined forum
  • Permitting Faith Center to use Antioch's meeting room on equal terms with other community groups does not violate the Establishment Clause

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 462 F.3d 1194	09/20/06
  Brief as Amicus	11/22/05

• Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America (9th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The Boy Scouts is not a religious organization for purposes of Establishment Clause analysis
  • Even if the Boy Scouts is considered religious, the leases are value-for-value contracts, not "aid" to a religious organization
  • Even assuming the Boy Scouts is a religious organization and the leases are "aid," such aid would not violate the Constitution

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 704 F.3d 1067	12/20/12
  Court of Appeals Order, reported at 471 F.3d 1038	12/18/06
  Brief as Amicus	02/15/05

• Saints Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. (7th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The district court incorrectly applied CLUB's standard for assessing facial violations of RLUIPA's substantial burden provision to this as-applied challenge

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 396 F.3d 895	02/01/05
  Brief as Amicus	08/13/04

• Guru Nanak Sikh Society v. County of Sutter (9th Cir.) -- Intervenor/Amicus

  • The district court correctly found that the county's denial of Guru Nanak's application for a use permit constituted a substantial burden in violation of Section 2 (a)(1) of RLUIPA
  • RLUIPA Section 2(a)(1), as made applicable by Section 2(a)(2)(c), is a valid exercise of Congress's Section 5 powers because it codifies established constitutional principles

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 456 F.3d 978	08/01/06
  Brief as Intervenor and Amicus	05/19/04

• Muhammed v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (6th Cir.) -- Intervenor-Appellee

  • Title VII's prohibition of religious discrimination, including its accommodation requirement, is valid Section 5 legislation

   

  Document	Date
  Dismissed	01/06/05
  Brief as Intervenor-Appellee	03/08/04

• Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside (11th Cir.) -- Amicus/Intervenor

  • Surfside's zoning scheme violates Section 2(b)(1) of RLUIPA because it treats religious assemblies on less than equal terms with similarly situated secular assemblies
  • The plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment as to whether Surfside's zoning scheme imposes a substantial burden on their exercise of religion in violation of Section 2(a)(1) of RLUIPA
  • The RLUIPA sections at issue are a valid exercise of Congress's authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and under the Commerce Clause

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 366 F.3d 1214	04/21/04
  Brief as Intervenor	01/05/04
  Brief as Amicus	11/25/03

• Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland v. Montgomery County Public Schools (4th Cir.) -- Amicus

  • The district court erred in balancing the imminent harm to CEF against the potential harm to Defendants-Appellees when considering CEF's motion for preliminary injunction
  • The board engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by denying CEF equal access to its folder forum
  • Permitting CEF to promote its after-school activities on equal terms with other community organizations does not violate the Establishment Clause

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 373 F.3d 589	06/30/04
  Brief as Amicus	06/11/03

• Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey v. Stafford Township School District (3d Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Stafford engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by denying CEF equal access to its community communications system
  • Permitting CEF to promote its after-school activities on equal terms with other community organizations does not violate the Establishment Clause

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 386 F.3d 514	10/15/04
  Brief as Amicus	05/09/03

• Donovan v. Punxsutawney Area School District (3d Cir.) -- Amicus

  • Denying FISH access to the limited open forum the school has created during the activities period violates the Equal Access Act
  • Denying plaintiff an equal opportunity to hold club meetings during the activity period violates the First Amendment

   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 336 F.3d 211	07/15/03
  Brief as Amicus	01/09/03

Browse Briefs by Category

Access to Justice
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Immigration
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other