In an Appeals Court decision penned by Judge Richard Posner, the 7th Circuit reinstated a lawsuit improperly dismissed by a lower court. Chicago's World Outreach Center cites RLUIPA along with its claim that the city discriminated against the religious organization by denying a zoning application. Importantly, Posner first found RLUIPA's land use provisions constitutional, then argued the city essentially engaged in "malicious prosecution" designed to mask its arbitrary denial behind procedural stumbling blocks.
From the opinion (via Religion Clause):
The district judge dismissed the complaint on the ground that requiring World Outreach to appeal the denial of a Special Use Permit to the board of zoning appeals did not impose a “substantial burden” on its Outreach had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.The principle is fine, but its application to this case perverse.
…
The picture painted by the complaint is of malicious prosecution of a religious organization by City officials, although the plaintiff doesn’t use the term. Malicious prosecution is harassment by frivolous legal claims. That is an exact description of the conduct alleged in the complaint. The burden imposed on a small religious organization catering to the poor was substantial (for burden is relative to the weakness of the burdened), and there was no possible justification for it. The dismissal of World Outreach’s substantial-burden (section 2000cc(a)(1)) claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was therefore error.
I especially like, "Burden is relative to the weakness of the burdened." Nicely said, isn't it? And surely true; the fortune-cookie-thought I will take with me into the new year.
