Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship v. County of Riverside, No. 17-56857 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Riverside County in an action brought by Calvary Chapel, alleging a facial challenge to a county zoning ordinance under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
The panel held that Calvary Chapel has failed to establish a prima facie violation of RLUIPA's equal terms provision on a facial challenge. The panel stated that, consistent with Riverside County's representations both in its briefs and at oral argument, Calvary Chapel was not prohibited from pursuing its religious practices under the zoning ordinance. In this case, Riverside County's zoning ordinance permits religious assemblies as special occasion facilities, and thus the ordinance does not treat religious assemblies on less than equal terms with secular assemblies. Finally, the panel declined to consider Calvary Chapel's new nondiscrimination claim on appeal in the first instance.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Riverside County in an action brought by Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship, a non-denominational Christian church, asserting a facial challenge to the county zoning ordinance under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. After Calvary Chapel bought its first parcel of land and constructed a church on the property, Riverside enacted more restrictive zoning ordinances that removed religious assemblies from the list of permissible uses in the zone where the Church is located. Calvary Chapel has operated a legal non-conforming use since. Calvary Chapel subsequently purchased a second parcel of land and hoped to expand its facilities. It asked Riverside to amend its zoning ordinance to specifically include religious assemblies as permitted uses in the zoned area. It also submitted an application to proceed with a proposed expansion, which remains pending. Calvary Chapel then brought this facial challenge to the zoning ordinance. The panel held that because, on its face, Riverside’s zoning ordinance permits religious assemblies as special occasion facilities, the ordinance does not treat religious assemblies on less than equal terms with secular assemblies. Thus, the panel held that under the plain terms of the ordinance, which was consistent with Riverside’s CALVARY CHAPEL BIBLE FELLOWSHIP V. RIVERSIDE 3 representations both in its briefs and at oral argument, Calvary Chapel is not prohibited from pursuing its religious practices. It can pursue the proposed expansion of its religious facilities as a special occasion facility. As such, the panel concluded that Calvary Chapel had failed to establish a prima facie violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act’s (RLUIPA) equal terms provision on a facial challenge. The panel declined to consider, on appeal in the first instance, Calvary Chapel’s new claim that Riverside violated RLUIPA’s nondiscrimination provision by needlessly requiring it to apply for a text amendment to the zoning ordinance. The panel held that Calvary Chapel could not change the gravamen of its non-discrimination claim on appeal from a facial challenge of the ordinance to a challenge of Riverside’s text amendment process.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.