## Facts

- An association of Chicago-area churches and five member churches challenged Chicago’s zoning ordinance regulating where churches could locate.
- Chicago’s zoning ordinance divided land into residential, business, commercial, and manufacturing zones; most developable land was zoned residential.
- Churches were permitted as of right in all residential zones, but required a “special use” permit in business zones and several commercial districts.
- Special use approval required a public hearing and findings tied to public health, safety, and welfare and avoidance of substantial injury to neighboring property values.
- The aggregate cost to pursue special use approval was about $5,000, plus delay and uncertainty associated with the process.
- Plaintiffs alleged that special use requirements, denials, and political opposition made it difficult and costly to locate churches in desired business or commercial areas.
- During the litigation, Chicago amended the ordinance to (i) subject comparable secular assemblies (clubs, lodges, meeting halls, community centers) to the same special use process where churches were subject to it, (ii) exempt churches from a “public convenience” showing, and (iii) require automatic issuance if the zoning board failed to decide within 120 days.
- Each plaintiff church ultimately obtained worship space in areas where churches were permitted as of right.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended zoning ordinance imposed a “substantial burden” on religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA.
2. Whether the ordinance violated RLUIPA by treating religious assemblies less favorably than similarly situated secular assemblies.
3. Whether the special use framework violated the Free Exercise, Free Speech, Assembly, Establishment, Equal Protection, or Due Process clauses.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City.
- The court held the ordinance, as amended, did not impose a substantial burden under RLUIPA.
- The court held the ordinance, as amended, complied with RLUIPA’s equal-terms and nondiscrimination requirements.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges, concluding the ordinance was neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to legitimate land-use objectives, and that the permitting process afforded adequate process.

## Legal Principles

- Under RLUIPA, a “substantial burden” requires more than ordinary zoning costs, delay, and uncertainty; it must have direct, primary responsibility for making religious exercise effectively impracticable.
- A land-use regulation that applies similar permitting requirements to comparable secular assemblies and religious assemblies is less likely to violate RLUIPA’s equal-terms and nondiscrimination provisions.
- Neutral, generally applicable zoning rules regulating the location of religious assemblies are ordinarily reviewed under rational-basis principles, even when they affect conduct associated with religious exercise.
- Procedural due process in zoning disputes generally requires only the minimal process typically afforded through established legislative and administrative zoning procedures.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Chicago’s amended zoning scheme, concluding that routine burdens from a special use permit process did not amount to a RLUIPA substantial burden, that comparable secular and religious assemblies were treated similarly after amendment, and that the ordinance and procedures did not violate the First Amendment, equal protection, or due process.


Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2003)