| 翻訳と辞書 |
| RLUIPA Equal Terms Provision Circuit Split ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
RLUIPA Equal Terms Provision Circuit Split
President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 into law on September 22 of 2000. This piece of legislation was intended to protect the free exercise of religion as it relates to institutionalized persons and land use.〔 One provision of RLUIPA pertaining to land use is the Equal Terms Provision.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21C/2000cc )〕 The Equal Terms Provision states “No 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.”〔 While RLUIPA has been the subject of lots of scholarly writing, the Equal Terms Provision has not gotten a lot of attention on its own.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.rluipa.org/index.php/topic/21.htm )〕
However, the Equal Terms Provision has proven difficult for some courts to interpret and has caused a circuit split as to its application.〔Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163, 1169 n.25 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011).〕 At this point in time there are three different approaches that Circuit Courts of Appeals have applied to the Equal Terms Provision.〔Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011).〕〔Midrash Sephardi Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004).〕〔The Lighthouse institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007).〕〔River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2010).〕
==The Eleventh Circuit Approach==
In a case dealing with the placement of synagogues the Eleventh Circuit was forced to analyze the Equal Terms Provision.〔Midrash Sephardi Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1218-19 (11th Cir. 2004).〕 The Court interpreted the Equal Terms provision to include a broad definition of “assembly or institution”〔 to compare secular and religious uses.〔Midrash Sephardi Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1230-31 (11th Cir. 2004).〕 If a similar secular institution is found, the law in question is subject to strict scrutiny, which means it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government end.〔Midrash Sephardi Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1235 (11th Cir. 2004).〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「RLUIPA Equal Terms Provision Circuit Split」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|