Scholarship

RLUIPA has been the subject of volumes of legal scholarship, both in favor and against. Becket Fund attorneys have participated actively in that conversation by publishing two law review articles, which are available here by permission of the publisher:

• Roman P. Storzer & Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: A Constitutional Response to Unconstitutional Zoning Practices, 9 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 929 (Summer 2001)
• Derek L. Gaubatz, RLUIPA at Four: Evaluating the Success and Constitutionality of RLUIPA’s Prisoner Provisions, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 501 (2005)

Below is other legal scholarship on RLUIPA, listed alphabetically by author’s last name. Very few of these articles can be linked here, but all are widely available at law libraries or through Westlaw or LexisNexis.

• ____, Developments in the Law IV: In the Belly of the Whale: Religious Practice in Prison, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 1891 (May 2002).
• Caroline R. Adams, The Constitutional Validity of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: Will RLUIPA’s Strict Scrutiny Survive the Supreme Court’s Strict Scrutiny?, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 2361 (2002)
• Shawn P. Bailey, The Establishment Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 16 Regent U.L. Rev. 53 (2003/2004)
• Kris Banvard, Exercise in Frustration? A New Attempt By Congress to Restore Strict Scrutiny to Governmental Burdens on Religious Practice, 31 Cap. U.L. Rev. 279 (2003)
• Lara A. Berwanger, Note, White Knight?: Can the Commerce Clause Save the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act?, 72 Fordham L. Rev. 2355 (2004)
• Kenneth J. Brown, Establishing a Buffer Zone: The Proper Balance Between the First Amendment Religion Clauses in the Context of Neutral Zoning Regulations, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1507 (2001)
• Anne Y. Chiu, Note, When Prisoners Are Weary and Their Religious Exercise Burdened, RLUIPA Provides Some Rest For Their Souls, 79 Wash. L. Rev. 999 (2004)
• Ruth Colker, City of Boerne Revisited, 70 U. Cin. L. Rev. 455 (2002)
• Heather Davis, Inmates’ religious rights: deference to religious leaders and accomodation of individualized religious beliefs, 64 Alb. L. Rev. 773 (2000)
• John J. Dvorske, Validity, Construction, and Operation of Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 181 A.L.R. Fed. 247 (2002)
• Benjamin S. Fischer, Note, Power to the Prisoner: The Importance of State Religious Freedom Acts in Preserving the Religious Liberties of Prisoners, 10 J.L. & Pol’y 233 (2001)
• Derek L. Gaubatz, RLUIPA at Four: Evaluating the Success and Constitutionality of RLUIPA’s Prisoner Provisions, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 501 (2004)
• Frederick Mark Gedicks, Symposium: Regulating Sacred Space: Religious Institutions and Land Use Controls: Towards a Defensible Free Exercise Doctrine, 68 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 925 (2000)
• Joshua R. Geller, Note, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: An Unconstitutional Exercise of Congress’s Power Under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, 6 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 561 (2002/2003)
• Kelly Gower, Note, Religious Practice in Prison & The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA): Strict Scrutiny Properly Restored, 6 Rutgers J. Law & Relig. 7 (2004)
• Heather Guidry, If At First You Don’t Succeed . . .: Can the Commerce and Spending Clauses Support Congress’s Latest Attempt at Religious Freedom Legislation, 32 Cumb. L. Rev. 419 (2002)
• Stephen A. Haller, On Sacred Ground: Exploring Congress’s Attempts to Rein in Discriminatory State Zoning Practices, 33 Sw. U. L. Rev. 285 (2004)
• Diane K. Hook, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: Congress’ New Twist on “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick,” 34 Urban Lawyer 829 (Fall 2002)
• Timothy J. Houseal, RLUIPA: Protecting Houses of Worship and Religious Liberty, 20 Del. Law. 28 (Fall 2002)
• Shawn Jensvold, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA): A Valid Exercise of Congressional Power?, 16 B.Y.U. J. Pub. L. 1 (2001)
• Von G. Keetch and Matthew K. Richards, Symposium: Restoring Religious Freedom in the States: The Need for Legislation to Enshrine Free Exercise in the Land Use Context, 32 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 725 (1999)
• Matthew D. Krueger, Note, Respecting Religious Liberty: Why RLUIPA Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause, 89 Minn. L. Rev. 1179 (2005)
• Douglas Laycock, State RFRAs and Land Use Regulation, 32 U.C. Davis. L. Rev. 755, 760 (1999)
• Catherine Maxson, Note, “Their Preservation is Our Sacred Trust”– Judicially Mandated Free Exercise Exemptions to Historic Preservation Ordinances under Employment Division v. Smith, 45 B.C. L. Rev 205 (2003)
• James B. McMullin, Note, Incarceration of the Free Exercise Clause: The Sixth Circuit’s Misstep in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 19 BYU J. Pub. L. 413 (2005)
• Matthew McNeil, Note, The First Amendment Out On Highway 61: Bob Dylan, RLUIPA, and the Problem with Emerging Postmodern Religion Clauses Jurisprudence, 65 Ohio St. L.J. 1021 (2004)
• Jennifer L. Monk & Robert H. Tyler, The Application of Prior Restraint: An Alternative Doctrine for Religious Land Use Cases, U. Tol. L. Rev. (Spring 2006)
• Stanton K. Oishi, RFRA II: The Failure of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 Under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 25 Hawaii L. Rev. 131 n.242 (2002)
• Julie M. Osborn, RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions: Congress’ Unconstitutional Response to City of Boerne, 28 Environs Envtl. L. & Pol’y J. 155 (2004)
• Michael Paisner, Boerne Supremacy: Congressional Responses to City of Boerne V. Flores and the Scope of Congress’s Article I Powers, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 537 (2005)
• Christine M. Peluso, Note, Congressional Intent v. Judicial Reality: The Practical Effects of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 6 Rutgers J. Law & Relig. 5 (2004)
• Kevin M. Powers, The Sword and the Shield: RLUIPA and the New Battle Ground of Religious Freedom, 22 Buf. Pub. Int. L.J. 145 (2004)
• Marc Rohr, And Congress Said, “Let There Be Religious Land Use”: a RLUIPA Primer, 78 Fla. Bar J. 18 (2004)
• Frank T. Santoro, Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 24 Whittier L. Rev. 493 (2002)
• Shelley Ross Saxer, Eminent Domain Actions Targeting First Amendment Land Uses, 69 Mo. L. Rev. 653 (2004)
• Richard C. Schragger, The Role of the Local in the Doctrine and Discourse of Religious Liberty, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 1810 (2004)
• Evan M. Shapiro, The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: An Analysis Under the Commerce Clause, 76 Wash. L. Rev. 1255 (2001)
• Sara Smolik, Note, The Utility and Efficacy of the RLUIPA: Was It A Waste?, 31 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 723 (2004)
• Roman P. Storzer and Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: A Constitutional Response to Unconstitutional Zoning Practices, 9 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 929 (2001)
• Matthew T. Sutter, Residential Religious Nuisance, RLUIPA and Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas: “Like a Pig in the Parlor,” 5 Rutgers J. Law & Relig. 6 (2004)
• Robert W. Tuttle, Symposium: Regulating Sacred Space: Religious Institutions and Land Use Controls: How Firm a Foundation? Protecting Religious Land Uses After Boerne, 68 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 861 (2000)
• Ada-Marie Walsh, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: Unconstitutional and Unnecessary, 10 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 189 (2001)
• Gregory S. Walston, Federalism and Federal Spending: Why the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 is Unconstitutional, 23 U. Haw. L. Rev. 479 (2001)
• David B. Zucco, Note, Super-Sized with Fries: Regulating Religious Land Use in the Era of Megachurches, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 416 (2003)