## Facts

- Westchester Day School, an Orthodox Jewish co-educational day school serving pre-school through eighth grade, operated for decades on a campus in the Village of Mamaroneck.
- The school determined its facilities were inadequate for its educational and religious program and proposed an expansion and related construction.
- The school applied to the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a required special permit.
- After multiple public hearings featuring supporters and opponents, the ZBA denied the special permit.
- The school sued in federal court, alleging (among other theories) that the denial violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).
- After an earlier appeal that upheld RLUIPA’s constitutionality and remanded, the district court conducted a bench trial and found the denial violated RLUIPA, ordering the Village to issue the permit.
- The Village and ZBA appealed the judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether denial of the special permit imposed a “substantial burden” on the school’s “religious exercise” under RLUIPA.
2. If so, whether the Village proved the denial furthered a compelling governmental interest and was the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
3. How to treat the religious character of a faith-based school’s educational program and facilities when evaluating “religious exercise” and “substantial burden.”

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the school.
- The court held the permit denial imposed a substantial burden on the school’s religious exercise.
- The court held the Village did not carry its burden to show a compelling governmental interest for denying the permit, nor that outright denial was the least restrictive means.
- The order requiring issuance of the special permit remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- RLUIPA bars implementation of land-use regulations that substantially burden religious exercise unless the government shows the burden furthers a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means.
- “Religious exercise” is defined broadly and includes the use, building, or conversion of real property for religious exercise; religiously based education at a religious school can qualify.
- A substantial burden exists where governmental action exerts substantial pressure on a religious institution to modify conduct in a way that conflicts with its religious mission, or seriously interferes with its ability to carry out that mission on its site.
- Courts may evaluate the record rather than accept conclusory characterizations, but may not replace a religious institution’s religious judgments with judicial assessments of what religious exercise requires.
- General zoning concerns (e.g., traffic, parking, neighborhood character, safety) may be legitimate interests, but under RLUIPA they must be supported as compelling on the record and addressed through the least restrictive means; feasible conditions or mitigation measures can defeat a claim that total denial is necessary.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Village’s denial of a special permit for a religious school’s campus expansion substantially burdened religious exercise under RLUIPA and failed strict scrutiny, so the district court properly ordered the Village to issue the permit.


Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2007)