No one should minimize the significance of this law to the well-being of our nation's churches.  It has already stopped many of the flagrant constitutional violations that our churches have been suffering from.

The Act essentially places a "substantial burden" on government entities to prove that their actions are justified when denying churches the use of their land.

One of the provisions in the Act says that "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that (A)totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction".

It also says that no government can "impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates  against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination".

So how has the new law been working over the past few years?  Here's an example:

The Hale O Kaula church in Maui, Hawaii is a small but growing congregation that purchased some agricultural land on which to build an 8,500 sq. ft. sanctuary building.  In 1995 they applied for a special use permit (much as we do here in Tulsa), but they were denied the permit by the Maui Planning Commission.  They applied again in 1999.  Their case was stalled for over a year as attorneys determined whether the new RLUIP law applied or not.   The attorneys said that it did not, so the Planning Commission once again denied their application.

In September of 2001, on behalf of the church, the Becket Fund filed a lawsuit against the Maui Planning Commission, Maui County, and the State of Hawaii for multiple violations of the RLUIP, and for violation of the church's constitutional rights.

An amendment to the lawsuit was later filed that added each member of the Maui Planning Commission as defendants in the lawsuit.  This part of the lawsuit was later dismissed because of 11th Amendment immunity that commissioners enjoyed from the Constitution.

In February of 2002, attorneys for the county filed a motion that the lawsuit should be dismissed in its entirety because, they claimed, that the RLUIP is "patently unconstitutional".

In May of 2002, the US Department of Justice requested that they intervene in the case so that they could defend the constitutionality of the RLUIP.  The judge in the case granted the request.

In August of 2002, the judge stated that the case was not "ripe for judicial decision", and stated that "Between now and the hearing on a permanent injunction, the parties should be able to clarify what exactly is being prohibited. If, in the meantime, the Plaintiffs request -- and Maui County officially prohibits -- all religious worship on Plaintiffs property at anytime (without assessing or examining facility expansion or new construction), then that matter would appear to be then ripe."

In other words, RLUIP would only apply if they did not build anything on their property.

In response, the church placed a tent on their property for worship services.  The County warned them that that was OK if it was not for regular worship services.

The judge in the case stated that he would not consider RLUIP in resolution of the case, only the First Amendment.  The DOJ's position is that the church's rights have been violated according to the RLUIP.

In the meantime, the case is ongoing, with legal bickering between judges of several benches and the DOJ.

The moral of this story is that just because something is made a law, it doesn't mean your church is automatically protected.  There are still plenty of people who are willing to discriminate against churches, and are willing to go to whatever legal means are necessary to maintain the status quo.  Churches need to be prepared to fight against this kind of legal infraction.