## Facts

- A nonprofit Sikh organization sought to build a gurudwara in Sutter County, California and needed a conditional use permit (CUP).
- In 2001, it applied for a CUP to build a roughly 5,000-square-foot temple on a 1.89-acre parcel zoned low-density residential (R-1), where religious assemblies were conditionally allowed.
- The County Planning Commission denied the first CUP after neighbors raised noise, traffic, and neighborhood-compatibility concerns.
- The organization then bought a 28.8-acre parcel zoned agricultural (AG) to reduce proximity to residences and proposed placing the temple on a small portion of the site.
- For the second application, the organization agreed to extensive operational and site conditions (including limits addressing parking, noise, and services).
- County staff and the Planning Commission approved the second CUP with conditions, but local citizens appealed.
- The County Board of Supervisors reversed and denied the second CUP, citing inconsistency with the General Plan, “leapfrog development,” and potential interference with agriculture (right-to-farm).
- The organization sued under RLUIPA in federal district court; the court granted summary judgment for the organization and enjoined the County to approve the CUP subject to agreed conditions.
- The County appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether denial of the second CUP, considered with the earlier denial and their stated rationales, imposed a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under RLUIPA.
2. If a substantial burden existed, whether the County proved the denial furthered a compelling governmental interest through the least restrictive means.
3. Whether RLUIPA’s substantial-burden provision was constitutional as applied to the County’s land-use decision.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the organization.
- The County’s two denials, viewed together and in context, imposed a substantial burden by significantly reducing the likelihood the organization could obtain approval to build a temple in the County.
- The County failed to identify and prove a compelling governmental interest justifying denial and failed to show denial was the least restrictive means.
- RLUIPA’s substantial-burden provision was constitutional as applied under Congress’s enforcement power in § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The injunction requiring the County to approve the CUP, subject to previously agreed conditions, was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- Under RLUIPA, a government may not implement a land-use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise unless it proves the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means.
- “Substantial burden” is assessed in context; repeated denials and the breadth of the rationales may substantially burden religious exercise even if a future application is theoretically possible.
- When a religious applicant makes repeated good-faith efforts to comply (including accepting significant conditions), continued denials may indicate strong pressure against religious exercise.
- Generalized planning goals must be supported by record evidence to satisfy strict scrutiny under RLUIPA; outright denial is not the least restrictive means when conditions or other measures could address the stated concerns.
- RLUIPA’s land-use protections, as applied to discretionary local permitting decisions, fall within Congress’s remedial authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Conclusion

The court held that the County’s pattern of denying CUPs for a Sikh temple substantially burdened religious exercise under RLUIPA, the County did not carry its strict-scrutiny burden, and RLUIPA was valid as applied, warranting injunctive relief requiring permit approval under agreed conditions.


Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006)