Episcopal Student Foundation v. City of Ann Arbor
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
341 F. Supp. 2d 691 (2004)

- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
The Episcopal Student Foundation’s Canterbury House (Canterbury) (plaintiff) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Ann Arbor (City) and its Historic District Commission (Commission) (defendants), in which Canterbury claimed that the City’s denial of a demolition permit for its worship facility violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Canterbury was a religious organization that operated a religious services center in a historic district for local university students, including worship services, concerts, and community meals. Canterbury also rented out a large portion of its facility to commercial tenants. After experiencing significant growth, Canterbury applied for permits to demolish its facility and replace it with a larger one to accommodate its expanding congregation and meal service. The Commission denied the application, and the State Historic Preservation Board affirmed the denial. Canterbury filed its RLUIPA action on the grounds that denial of the permits substantially burdened Canterbury’s free exercise of religion by impeding its ability to engage in religious exercises that required additional space. The City countered that Canterbury’s free exercise of religion was not substantially burdened and also that RLUIPA was itself unconstitutional. Both parties moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Borman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.