In Inclusive Louisiana v. St. James Parish, (ED LA, Feb. 9, 2026), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss claims against St. James Parish contending that plaintiffs have been harmed by land use decisions that have concentrated polluting industrial sites in majority black areas between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The affected area has a particularly high cancer rate. Plaintiffs are an advocacy organization, a Baptist church whose members claim descent from formerly enslaved people, and a faith-based organization advocating for an end to petrochemical industries in the area. The court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with claims under the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution. It also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claim that defendants' actions have violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, saying in part:
... Plaintiffs in the case allege that Defendants “have implemented land use regulations in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.” ... Plaintiffs specifically designate three of Defendants’ acts that “have burdened Plaintiffs’ members’ ability to pray upon the unmarked cemeteries of enslaved ancestors by permitting the construction of industrial facilities upon these cemeteries.”...
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not meet the definition of “claimants” under the statute because they have not alleged an ownership or other property interest in the land at issue in the case....
... Plaintiffs allege that “plantation owners were legally required to set aside land for burying the people they enslaved, . . . that graves were often marked by trees to identify them for loved ones and descendant communities, and preserved by laborers and farmers.”.... These allegations are more than sufficient to create a plausible claim that these pieces of land were “dedicated” as cemeteries for their ancestors, cemeteries which have since “been transformed into an industrial site, to be exploited for material gain.” However, even absent these specific and well-researched allegations, the fact that the plantation owners buried the bodies of the people whom they enslaved on these plots of land seems sufficient to constitute an intention to dedicate. Therefore, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have a property interest in the plots of land at issue—the unmarked cemeteries of enslaved people on the Formosa and SLM plots—to assert a plausible claim under the RLUIPA’s Substantial Burden clause....
The second claim under RLUIPA has been brought against Defendants by only one Plaintiff, Mount Triumph Baptist Church. Specifically, Mount Triumph alleges that Defendants have implemented land use regulations that protect Catholic and majority-white churches from industrial development through required buffer zones, but that also permit such development in the immediate vicinity of majority-black churches with no such protection. Because Defendants have not specifically moved to dismiss this claim, the Court does not feel the need to discuss this claim, other than to say that Mount Triumph has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face....
