29 F.4th 182
4th Cir.2022Background
- Property: five adjacent parcels in Burtonsville, MD, within the Patuxent River watershed and the Rural Edge; master plan (2012 Burtonsville Crossroads Neighborhood Plan, "BCNP") expressly recommended that no public sewer service be permitted for the parcels "for any use."
- Owners repeatedly sought water/sewer category change requests (WSCCRs) for secular and religious developments over decades; prior WSCCRs for the parcels were routinely deferred/denied.
- Canaan Christian Church (seeking a 2,000-seat facility) contracted to buy the parcels contingent on County approval of WSCCRs to extend public sewer; applications filed in 2013 and 2014 were denied by the County Council in 2015.
- County defended denials based on master-plan restrictions and watershed protection; County and planning agencies recommended denial citing BCNP, though County later found septic + public water could support an 800-seat church.
- Procedural posture: district court granted summary judgment to County; plaintiffs (Canaan and most landowners) appealed RLUIPA substantial-burden and equal-terms claims and First Amendment free-exercise claim; Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA substantial-burden | Denial of WSCCRs substantially burdened Canaan's religious exercise by preventing construction of a facility meeting its unmet religious needs. | Plaintiffs knowingly contracted for property expressly excluded from sewer under the BCNP; any burden was self-imposed and restriction was not absolute (smaller septic option existed). | No substantial-burden: plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of sewer approval and burden was self-imposed; court did not apply strict scrutiny. |
| RLUIPA equal-terms | County treated Canaan worse than secular comparators (e.g., Glenstone museum) in granting sewer to nonreligious institution but denying Canaan. | Glenstone was not similarly situated: governed by a different master plan (Potomac Plan) that allowed more discretion; BCNP’s specific prohibition applied to Canaan’s parcels. | No equal-terms violation: plaintiffs failed to identify a similarly situated secular comparator under the same controlling regulation; County applied master plans consistently. |
| Free Exercise Clause | Denial was not generally applicable or neutral because County used discretionary/"specific restrictive" interpretations that invited individualized exceptions, triggering strict scrutiny. | BCNP is a facially neutral, generally applicable master plan (categorical no-sewer for these parcels except for documented public-health problems); County’s action is rationally related to protecting watershed/public health. | Rational-basis review applies; BCNP is rationally related to legitimate interest (watershed protection); Free Exercise claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery Cnty. Council, 706 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2013) (defines substantial-burden standard in land-use context)
- Jesus Christ Is the Answer Ministries v. Baltimore Cnty., 915 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2019) (two-step inquiry for RLUIPA substantial-burden: nature of impediment and whether burden is self-imposed)
- Andon, LLC v. City of Newport News, 813 F.3d 510 (4th Cir. 2016) (self-imposed hardship doctrine bars RLUIPA claim where plaintiff knowingly entered contingent agreement for nonconforming property)
- Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) (RLUIPA framework in land-use cases)
- Redeemed Christian Church of God (Victory Temple) Bowie v. Prince George’s Cnty., 17 F.4th 497 (4th Cir. 2021) (application of RLUIPA strict scrutiny principles)
- Reaching Hearts Int’l, Inc. v. Prince George’s Cnty., 584 F. Supp. 2d 766 (D. Md. 2008) (contrast case where county’s post-purchase action and lack of evidence produced RLUIPA relief for church)
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws receive rational-basis review)
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (individualized-exemption mechanism renders law not generally applicable and can trigger strict scrutiny)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (targeted laws that single out religious conduct trigger strict scrutiny)
- Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton v. Broward Cnty., 450 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006) (as-applied Equal Terms claim requires proof of a nonreligious comparator receiving more favorable treatment)