Federal court decisions from the last few years demonstrate increased skepticism when evaluating government actions effecting religious exercise. It appears as though this trend will continue into 2026 based on a recent RLUIPA[1] opinion from the Ninth Circuit. In Harris v. Muhammad,[2] the Ninth Circuit held the district court incorrectly dictated the content of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs and erroneously questioned the sincerity of his beliefs. Although this decision dealt with an incarcerated individual it nonetheless has great implication for Land Use claims brought under RLUIPA.
In Harris the Ninth Circuit correctly stated federal courts, and by extension the government, cannot dictate to a religious observer what is required by their faith because to do so would “impose[] a judicial assessment of what” the tenants of a religion are.[3] The opinion continues to cite the book of Matthew saying “Judges ought not be Pharisees, decreeing from on high what practices are relevant to a prisoner’s understanding of his own faith.”[4]
The idea that courts cannot decide what a religion requires of its observants, is not new. However, it has significant implications over RLUIPA land use claims. Many times, a religious organization may not neatly fit within the zoning uses of a municipality. Additionally, as church ministries evolve and grow, there may be events at the church location that a municipality bans in that particular zoning district. Under Harris, these churches can now argue what they are doing is not a different use but rather a religious use. For example, a church may feel the homeless are under feed in their area and begin operating a soup kitchen. Similarly a municipality may in response inform the church their zoning doesn’t allow for a use as a soup kitchen. The church is now able to argue the soup kitchen is not a different use necessitating a variance or new zoning approval. Rather it is their religious exercise. This reasoning would also apply to worship services held on the church grounds.
Regardless, federal courts continue to demonstrate increasingly vigorous review of government actions impacting religious exercise, whether protected under RLUIPA or the First Amendment. It is not the province of courts or municipal government to dictate to religious believers what is or is not religious exercise. If your religious organization has been adversely impacted by a municipal zoning ordinance enactment or enforcement or through the application for a permit, variance or other such land use application you may have a claim under RLUIPA.
At Dalton & Tomich we specialize in religious land use cases brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act; 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. We stand ready to fight for your religious freedom and put our wealth of knowledge and experience of RLUIPA law to work for you.
About Dalton + Tomich
Established in 2010, Dalton + Tomich PLC is comprised of religious liberty, land use, denominational trust law, and business law attorneys. Our team are experts in RLUIPA claims and ready to fight for your rights. Learn more about our services at https://www.daltontomich.com/.
[1] RLUIPA stands for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.
[2] — F.4th —-, No. 24-3307, 2026 WL 292420 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2026).
[3] Id. at *5.
[4] Id.
