RLUIPA.org
Federal judge allows appeal of RLUIPA constitutionality ruling
December 22, 2003
Federal judge allows appeal of RLUIPA constitutionality ruling
Judge Wilson only federal judge to find religious land use law unconstitutional
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson, the only federal judge to rule that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") is unconstitutional in the land use context, has granted a Becket Fund request to take an interlocutory appeal of his ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In an order issued on December 17 in Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore, Judge Wilson agreed with The Becket Fund that the request meets all of the standards for allowing such an appeal: "a) The Constitutionality of RLUIPA §2(a) Is a Controlling Question of Law; b) There Is Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion; and c) Interlocutory Appeal May Materially Advance the Ultimate Termination of the Litigation."
"It cannot be questioned that the constitutionality issue will weigh heavily on the resolution of Plaintiffs' RLUIPA claim," Judge Wilson wrote. "Furthermore . . . the legal analysis of RLUIPA's constitutionality will also aid this Court in reaching a determination as to whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause." Wilson notes that while he ruled that §2(a) of RLUIPA is unconstitutional, at least four other federal courts around the country have reached the opposite conclusion, and "thus, there can be little doubt that there is ‘substantial ground for difference of opinion'" on the issue.
"Certification of this question for interlocutory appeal may materially advance the termination of this litigation," he continued. "Plaintiffs note that if the Ninth Circuit were to reverse this Court, finding RLUIPA §2(a) constitutional, judgment would be entered for Plaintiffs on the RLUIPA claim because this Court already found a RLUIPA violation. . . . As a result, the case would be terminated. If, on the other hand, the Court of Appeals were to uphold this Court's finding that RLUIPA is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority, this case would return to its current posture. . . But should the Court of Appeals rule in this manner, the legal analysis it undergoes will still materially advance the termination of this litigation."
The Ninth Circuit must now agree to take up the interlocutory appeal before the ruling can be considered at the appeals court level.