The Berry’s, owners of a piece of property in Jefferson Parish, sued the Parish following a rezoning of their land, alleging, among other things, that the Parish changed the zoning of their property to prevent a Christian-affiliated developer from building housing for minorities, the elderly and disabled. The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, and the Berry’s appealed. With respect to their claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Court of Appeals noted that it was unclear as to whether the Berrys are attempting to assert their own rights or the rights of third parties. Regardless though, the Court held that they failed to assert the requisite elements of standing. Specifically, the Court said that if the Berrys are asserting the rights of a third party, no argument was made that they have a close relationship to the aggrieved parties or that there was something hindering the aggrieved third parties from bringing the lawsuit themselves. While not specifically ruling on the question of whether prudential standing requirements apply to RLUIPA cases, the Court rather found that the Berry’s RLUIPA claim fails because they have not asserted an injury that would give them standing to bring the claim. As a result, the Berry’s failed to meet their burden of proving subject-matter jurisdiction.
Berry v. Jefferson Parish, 2009 WL 1212885 (C.A. 5 (Ka.) 5/5/2009).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-30614.0.wpd.pdf
