In Dreskin v. Borough of Bogota, (D NJ, July 31, 2026), a New Jersey federal district court rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA to enforcement of building, fire and health code provisions against a small Jewish nursery school. The court said in part:
On their face and as applied, the Building, Fire, and Health Code provisions at issue are content neutral, and Plaintiff does not identify any specific provision that targets religious conduct. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to support her claim of disparate treatment with evidence of similarly situated secular comparators who were treated more favorably....
... [A] plaintiff must show more than a mere inconvenience to establish a “substantial burden” under the RLUIPA; the burden must render religious exercise “effectively impracticable” but does not require a showing of discriminatory governmental conduct....
The Borough’s enforcement actions have not rendered Plaintiff’s religious exercise “effectively impracticable”—Plaintiff remains free to practice her faith in other ways, and the enforcement regime does not permanently prohibit PLAYfully from operating or expanding in the future. Rather, the Borough is seeking to enforce the Building, Fire, and Health Codes based on Plaintiff’s prior noncompliance. Once Plaintiff achieves compliance and resolves any penalties from past violations, her ability to provide religious instruction through the program is not foreclosed on the same grounds. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial burden under the RLUIPA.
Plaintiff’s claim under the Equal Terms provision likewise fails, as she has failed to identify a secular comparator that is similarly situated in the context of the regulation....
