Court Opinion

ID: 9503904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:49:21.77187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:46.019041
License: Public Domain

KELLY, J.
(concurring). I agree with the order in which the majority opinion interprets the relevant provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 USC 2000cc et seq. I concur in the majority’s holding that there was no individualized assessment in this case and therefore that RLUIPA is not applicable.
I write separately because I believe it is unnecessary to discuss (1) whether the building of an apartment complex was a religious exercise, (2) whether the refusal to rezone plaintiffs property substantially burdened the alleged religious exercise, and (3) whether the alleged burden was in furtherance of a compelling *411governmental interest and constituted the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The majority’s discussion of these issues is mere dicta.
I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment because RLUIPA is inapplicable in the instant case.