United States v. Perez-Velazquez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that facial RLUIPA challenges were \ripe the moment the challenged regulation or ordinance [was] passed\ even though plaintiff did not apply for a permit or variance
• concluding that the plaintiff did not have third-party standing because the plaintiff failed to prove or even allege “that some barrier or practical obstacle (e.g., third party is unidentifiable, lacks sufficient interest, or will suffer some sanction
• noting that if “[t]he ordinances ...' in fact completely prevent Plaintiffs from building and running a rabbinical college at all in Pomona,” then “Plaintiffs have established a substantial burden”
• concluding plaintiffs adequately alleged a violation of Article 1, § 3 and implicitly assuming a private right of action exists
• finding that trained rabbis who sought to live and to teach at a planned rabbinical college affected by zoning ordinances had standing to assert RLUIPA claim
• dismissing the plaintiffs’ as applied challenge because they failed to submit a single proposal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).