Anash Inc v. Borough of Kingston
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Reversed
The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a rabbi and his yeshiva after Kingston, Pennsylvania, condemned two properties and barred their religious use under a 2023 zoning ordinance. Holding that the ordinance likely imposed a ‘substantial burden’ on religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA, the court ordered the Borough to cease enforcement actions and remanded for further proceedings.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Proper standard for determining what constitutes a 'substantial burden' under RLUIPA’s land-use provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1).
Circuit Positions
Broad nexus approach – a land-use regulation that restricts access to or use of property for religious exercise ordinarily imposes a substantial burden unless it meets strict scrutiny.
Totality-of-circumstances / feasible-alternative test – regulation is a substantial burden only when it severely inhibits religious exercise after considering claimant’s expectations, alternatives, and self-imposed factors.
Conflict Summary
The Third Circuit adopts an expansive, property-focused rule that virtually any zoning restriction preventing or limiting access to real property for religious exercise is a substantial burden unless it survives strict scrutiny. Most other circuits apply a narrower, totality-of-the-circumstances test that looks to factors such as the claimant’s reasonable expectations, self-imposed burdens, and availability of feasible alternative sites, deeming a burden substantial only when regulation places significant pressure on the religious entity to modify or forgo its religious exercise.