17 F.4th 497
4th Cir.2021Background
- Victory Temple, a rapidly growing church, purchased a Bowie, MD parcel zoned R-E but designated Water & Sewer Category 5, which requires a legislative amendment to Category 4 before development.
- Victory Temple applied (Nov. 2018) for a Category 5→4 legislative amendment so it could build a ~2,000-seat church and parking; County DPIE, County Executive, and M‑NCPPC recommended approval.
- Local opposition centered on traffic, safety, parking, and quality‑of‑life concerns; the County Council’s Transportation Committee voted to deny the application and the County Council adopted that denial (May 7, 2019).
- Victory Temple sued under RLUIPA alleging the denial imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise; after a bench trial the district court held RLUIPA applied, found a substantial burden, held the denial failed strict scrutiny, and entered a permanent injunction requiring reclassification to Category 4.
- The County appealed, arguing (inter alia) RLUIPA does not apply to the legislative amendment and that the County’s denial satisfied strict scrutiny based on traffic‑safety concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the requested legislative amendment to the Water & Sewer Plan is a "land use regulation" (i.e., "zoning") subject to RLUIPA | Amendment functions like zoning because the Water & Sewer Plan divides land into categories that permit or restrict development; RLUIPA should be broadly construed in favor of religious exercise | The term "zoning" should be defined by Maryland law; a water & sewer plan amendment is a comprehensive planning action, not zoning | RLUIPA applies: federal law governs the term "zoning," and the Water & Sewer Plan functions to zone areas and limit development, so the amendment is a land use regulation subject to RLUIPA |
| Whether the County made individualized assessments when denying the application (triggering RLUIPA) | County evaluated parcel‑specific factors (church size, parking, road conditions), so individualized assessment exists | (Argued generally that decision was legislative/comprehensive) | There were parcel‑by‑parcel individualized assessments; RLUIPA was triggered |
| Whether the denial imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise | Denial prevented Victory Temple from building needed church; plaintiff had reasonable expectation to develop the parcel | (County did not contest substantial burden on appeal) | District court (and this Court) accepted the substantial burden finding |
| Whether the denial survived strict scrutiny (compelling interest; least restrictive means) | Even if traffic safety is compelling, denial was not the least restrictive means; County failed to consider or present alternatives and traffic would be studied at later subdivision review | Denial furthers compelling interest in traffic safety and the Council reasonably relied on common‑sense evidence without expert traffic study | The County conceded or relied chiefly on traffic safety; Court assumed traffic safety could be compelling but held County did not show the denial was least restrictive—no consideration of narrower measures and a traffic study or later subdivision review were available—so strict scrutiny failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. Cnty. of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006) (government triggers RLUIPA when it makes parcel‑specific assessments of proposed land use)
- Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 694 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2012) (functional test: environmental or review processes can constitute land‑use regulation when they resolve zoning/land‑use issues)
- Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery Cnty. Council, 706 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2013) (RLUIPA analysis in context of county water/sewer and zoning denials)
- NLRB v. Nat’l Gas Util. Dist. of Hawkins Cnty., 402 U.S. 600 (1971) (federal statutes are to be construed under federal, not state, law absent clear indication)
- Reaching Hearts Int’l, Inc. v. Prince George’s Cnty., [citation="368 F. App'x 370"] (4th Cir. 2010) (prior challenge to County’s denial of a water/sewer legislative amendment raising RLUIPA issues)
- City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) (zoning at core involves dividing community into zones by like land use)