Recent Accomplishments Of The Housing And Civil Enforcement Section

Citation: Recent Accomplishments Of The Housing And Civil Enforcement Section
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Source verification: cross_accepted_sealed
Original Source: https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-accomplishments-housing-and-civil-enforcem... ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,799 chars

that its alleged injury is redressable through the relief it seeks, including injunctive relief that would require the County to grant the rezoning. On June 20, 2025, the Court granted in part the church’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the County’s denial of the church’s rezoning application. The Court’s order noted that it denied the County’s motion to dismiss at the June 9, 2025, hearing on the church’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
On April 17, 2025, the court issued an opinion ruling in favor of the plaintiff, granting a preliminary injunction on the church’s RLUIPA substantial burden and equal terms claims, and adopting several of the arguments from the United States’ statement of interest in Anchor Stone Christian Church v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.). The lawsuit alleges that the City’s professional district allows, as of right, nonreligious assembly uses like museums and art galleries, but only allows religious assembly uses with the City’s discretionary approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). The lawsuit alleges that Anchor Stone is a small Christian church of first-generation Chinese and Taiwanese Americans. It obtained space within the City’s professional district and applied for a CUP to operate a Church but was denied by the City. The Church filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order allowing it to worship at its property. The Department’s statement of interest, which was filed on March 14, 2025, supports the Church’s argument that the zoning code, on its face, treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assembly uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision, and that the City has failed to justify this unequal treatment.
On April 16, 2025, the court issued an opinion ruling in favor of the