Lubavitch v. Borough of Litchfield, Conn.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that targeting unequal treatment between religious and secular organizations is a “permissible secular purpose”
• denying motion to dismiss Free Speech and Freedom of Association claims, because plaintiffs had adequately alleged defendants’ intent to interfere with plaintiffs’ “religious speech and expressive association”
• denying motion to dismiss Free Speech challenge to zoning ordinance regulating size of houses of worship, because plaintiff had alleged that defendants “acted with the intent to interfere with [plaintiffs] religious speech and expressive association” (emphasis in original)
• “RLUIPA does not act to advance religion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).