1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL DORMAN, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-cv-12552 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES 

TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS 

 On May 29, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for 

summary judgment. (See Motions, ECF ## 79, 81.) At the conclusion of the hearing, 

the Court took Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to Count II of their First Amended 

Complaint under advisement. (See Order, ECF #94.) In that count, Plaintiffs allege 

that Defendant Clinton Township’s zoning ordinance violates the “Equal Terms” 

provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq. That provision 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). 

 
2 

 In connection with Plaintiffs’ Equal Terms claim, the Court is wrestling with 

the following question: what is the relevant “land use regulation”? Plaintiffs say that 

the relevant “land use regulation” is the specific provision of the Township’s zoning 

ordinance that creates the “RML” district in which Plaintiffs’ church is located. 

Plaintiffs insist that that specific provision, on its face, treats churches on “less than 

equal terms” than certain nonreligious assemblies. Clinton Township counters that 

the relevant “land use regulation” is the zoning ordinance writ large and in its 

entirety. Clinton Township says that the zoning ordinance, when viewed as a whole, 

does not treat churches less equally than nonreligious assemblies, and, in fact, treats 

churches more favorably than secular uses. 

 Neither party has analyzed in any significant depth how the Court should 

determine what the relevant “land use regulation” is in this case. The Court therefore 

directs the parties to submit supplemental briefs that address that subject. In those 

briefs, the parties shall identify and discuss any relevant authorities that speak to the 

issue of how a court should identify the relevant “land use regulation” in the context 

of a facial challenge under RLUIPA. If the parties rely on cases involving “as 

applied” challenges under RLUIPA, the parties shall explain why those cases are 

relevant to the determination of the relevant “land use regulation” in the context of 

the facial challenge before the Court. Finally, if the parties do not find any 

authorities addressing how to identify the relevant “land use regulation” in the 
3 

context of an RLUIPA facial challenge, they shall present reasoned arguments – 

perhaps based on the language of RLUIPA, other analogous statutes, analogous 

cases, or good, old-fashioned logic – as to why the Court should adopt their proposed 

“land use regulation” as the relevant one in the context of Plaintiffs’ facial RLUIPA 

challenge. 

The parties shall file their supplemental briefs, which shall be no longer than 

10 pages each, by no later than July 1, 2019. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 12, 2019 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on June 12, 2019, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764