The Quest for Congruence: Why the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Should Apply to Eminent Domain
Vikki Bollettino, 39 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1263 (2010)
(An excerpt is below. To view the full text, please use Westlaw, Lexis, a law library or alternative source.)
This Comment argues that eminent domain, like zoning, should be subject to strict scrutiny review under RLUIPA. Part II discusses a pending case, Albanian Associated Fund v. Township of Wayne, to illustrate how eminent domain may hamper free exercise. Part III outlines the history and discusses the relevant provisions of RLUIPA. Part IV describes the current debate over whether RLUIPA should apply to eminent domain actions through a discussion of current case law. Part V argues that eminent domain may be exercised in a manner that is analogous to the application of a zoning law, and therefore should be similarly subject to strict scrutiny review when it burdens free exercise. Part VI illustrates how zoning and eminent domain are used together to achieve the broader purpose of land use regulation, and thus both should be reviewed using a strict scrutiny analysis. Part VII discusses the need for strict scrutiny review of eminent domain condemnations of religious property post-Kelo. Ultimately, this Comment argues that since government frequently exercises both its zoning and eminent domain authority for the broader purpose of land use regulation, eminent domain challenges, like zoning challenges, should receive strict scrutiny review under RLUIPA.
