Tibetan Buddhists denied opportunity to assemble for worship

Jun 24, 2004

From:  The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
           1350 Connecticut Avenue
           Washington, D.C.
           Contact: Jared N. Leland, Esq. (202) 955-0095
                         Kelly Jane Torrance

For immediate release: June 24, 2004

Tibetan Buddhists denied opportunity to assemble for worship
City Council ignores Becket Fund warning that decision would violate federal law

The City Council of Escondido, CA, determined yesterday evening that a small group of Tibetan Buddhists – who fled their homeland to escape religious persecution – could not use their property as a meditation center.

By a 3-2 vote, and over the Mayor’s objections, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s May 2004 decision to deny the congregation’s application for a conditional use permit (CUP).

“The City’s decision is disappointing and, more importantly, violates the constitution and RLUIPA,” said Jared Leland, Esq., Media & Legal Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund is an international, interfaith, public interest law firm that has represented dozens of churches and other religious organizations in lawsuits filed under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). “This community fled Tibet to escape religious persecution and find a new home. But now, in the U.S., they’ve been denied what forty Christian churches in the city already have: a place to assemble and worship.”

In response to the Planning Commission’s denial of the CUP, the Becket Fund submitted an advisory letter to the Council, warning that upholding the Commission’s decision would run afoul of federal law.

“The Planning Commission's denial of the Center’s application to use the Property for religious assembly raises serious issues under both RLUIPA and the United States Constitution,” wrote the Becket Fund. RLUIPA codifies constitutional principles derived from the First and Fourteenth Amendments (as they apply in the zoning context), and so protects religious assembly and land use against substantial, unjustifiable burdens.

“[The] courts have repeatedly concluded that traffic and parking, though understandably legitimate concerns, do not meet the high threshold of a ‘compelling’ government interest,” the only interest that may justify burdening religious exercise. “Moreover, a flat refusal to permit the Tibetan Buddhist congregation to use its property for religious assembly under any circumstances will certainly not be considered the ‘least restrictive means’ of achieving [the] proffered compelling interest.”

As many secular-but-similar assembly uses were previously approved by the Planning Commission, the Becket Fund also addressed the unequal treatment of nonreligious and religious land uses in its letter to the Council.

“Discrimination and unequal treatment in the land use context is all too common today, and that’s exactly why RLUIPA is so very important,” Leland said.