In Anchor Stone Christian Church v. City of Santa Ana, (CD CA, April 7, 2025), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction allowing a church to operate and make renovations to an office building it had acquired. The city had denied a conditional use permit to the church. The court concluded that the denial violated RLUIPA’s equal terms and substantial burden provisions, as well as the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. The court said in part:
… [T]he City must do more than identify some similarly situated nonreligious assemblies that are treated as badly as religious assemblies—the City must show that it treats “every” similarly situated nonreligious assembly equally to religious assemblies….
In short, it appears unlikely that the City will meet its burden to establish that the Zoning Ordinance treats religious assembly on equal terms with similarly situated nonreligious assembly uses….
The Court concludes that, based upon the totality of the circumstances, Anchor Stone has met its burden to show that the City’s denial of its CUP application substantially burdened Anchor Stone’s religious exercise….
The City’s reasons for denying a CUP to Anchor Stone also appear particularly
arbitrary in view of the City’s reasons for granting a CUP to Compass Bible Church….
The Planning Commission and the City Council refused to consider or apply RLUIPA in connection with Anchor Stone’s CUP application. Multiple commissioners and councilmembers expressed “offense” at the mention of RLUIPA, while the City’s staff affirmed that it was the City’s “position” that RLUIPA was “outside the scope” of the CUP application process. One councilmember regarded the mention of RLUIPA as a “smack in [his] face” and an attempt to “circumvent [Santa Ana’s] local laws.” Such comments from a government official fall far short of fulfilling the “First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,”….
First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision.