Court Opinion

ID: 9796005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:45:04.894027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:08.819986
License: Public Domain

BREITHAUPT, J. pro tempore,
concurring.
I concur with the majority in all respects and write only to call attention to certain matters of interest in cases such as this.
First, RLUIPA is a federal statute and, as such, the first inquiry must be whether Congress had the power to adopt the statute. In RLUIPA, Congress has constrained the application of the statute so that the bases of congressional authority are stated as preconditions to the application of the statute. RLUIPA specifies that the section at issue here, 42 USC section 2000cc(a)(2) (2000), applies only to cases in which, summarizing the statute:
(A) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives federal financial assistance;
(B) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, or with the Indian tribes; or
(C) the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation as part of which individualized assessments are made.
The majority notes that it is assumed that the predicate listed in (C) above is present in this case. However, if that assumption were not made, it would be necessary for the party seeking the benefit of the federal statute to establish one of the other two bases for application of the statute. At least one court has expressed the view that the “Commerce Clause” predicate found in (B) above itself constitutes an extension of federal power beyond the limits of the United States Constitution. Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore, 291 F Supp 2d 1083 (CD Cal 2003). It will always be helpful to courts for counsel in cases such as this to address *467the preconditions for application and the related issues of congressional power.
Second, petitioner seeks to gain some benefit from the fact that it purchased the property in question and might suffer an economic penalty if it had to sell the property and locate within the urban growth boundary. However, petitioner presumably knew or could have determined what the zoning rules were that applied to this property. Further, petitioner did not need to purchase the property in order to determine if it could proceed with its plans. RLUIPA applies even in cases where the claimant’s interest is only an option or contract right to acquire the land affected by a land use regulation. 42 USC § 2000cc-5(5) (2000). The record here indicates that the land in question is essentially fungible farmland. Accordingly, an option to acquire such property would be, presumably, relatively inexpensive and a condition to closing under a purchase contract relating to zoning approval would, presumably, have been available. In any case, absent a showing by the petitioner that such an inexpensive option or closing condition was not available, I would not give petitioner any credit for having proceeded with a purchase that may have produced damage of petitioner’s own making.