City of Salinas, California v. New Harvest Christian Fellowship

The “equal terms” provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) states that “[n]o government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1). To revitalize its downtown using well-accepted zoning criteria, the City of Salinas enacted a zoning provision, App. 63, that, on its face, bars religious and secular assemblies alike from using ground floor spaces facing Main Street. These uses are inconsistent with a pedestrian-friendly commercial environment. New Harvest Christian Fellowship brought an “equal terms” claim after the City denied a permit to use the ground floor of a multistory building for worship services. The Ninth Circuit treated the claim as a facial challenge to the text of the City’s zoning ordinance and sustained the claim without requiring New Harvest to identify similarly situated secular comparators that were treated better. In contrast, the First, Third, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits require plaintiffs to show how secular comparators are treated for all “equal terms” claims. The question here is what a RLUIPA plaintiff must show in an “equal terms” facial challenge.