In Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church v. Township of Collier, (3d Cir., Oct. 19, 2026), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of zoning provisions that prevent a Church from building shrine on land it owns. The majority held that even though the Church is likely to ultimately succeed on the merits of its claim under RLUIPA, it has not shown the risk of irreparable injury necessary to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. The majority said in part:
We think Holy Trinity is likely to show that the township’s rejection effectively bars the project and thus substantially burdens its chosen land use. First, although Holy Trinity was just taking the first step of seeking rezoning (to be followed by project-specific applications), the Board focused on the ultimate shrine project. Second, residents overwhelmingly disapproved of the shrine project, not just the rezoning application.
Finally, and most troubling, both community and Board members objected to the shrine’s pro-life message....
... Preliminary relief does not automatically follow whenever a party is likely to win on the merits. That is because the “goal of preliminary injunctive relief” is not to decide the case, but merely to “preserv[e] the status quo” as it proceeds....
... [A] preliminary injunction is not a shortcut to that final relief. It is a temporary patch to ensure that a court can see a case through to final judgment.... Holy Trinity wants to raise funds for a shrine, secure in the knowledge that it can build it. But that is a promise that preliminary relief cannot make. What the parish needs is expedited final judgment. The District Court has moved with admirable swiftness, proceeding from complaint to preliminary-injunction ruling in three months. We trust that it will continue with that speed....
Judge Matey dissented, criticizing the majority for relying on a recent decision refusing to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of campaign finance laws. He said in part:
It might be easy to lament today’s opinion as another curia dedit, curia abstulit with one panel decision washing away the foundation of another before the ink dried. ... That is how the majority is able to acknowledge that Holy Trinity is likely to succeed on the merits of its RLUIPA claim and that re-application would be futile,yet still force the Church to return to municipal purgatory to await the inevitable denial of their proposed religious shrine. That result would have been impossible at the beginning of August under our decision in Anash, Inc. v. Borough of Kingston.... But thirty days changed the world—of equity, RLUIPA, the First Amendment, and perhaps all constitutional claims raised in our Circuit—because, writes the majority, the freshly minted decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Albence, ... insists on preserving the status quo of religious discrimination....
Religion is the “duty which we owe to our Creator and the Manner of discharging it,” consisting of “offering service and ceremonial rights to a superior nature that men call divine.” What a strange place to plant new equitable vines that will entangle efforts to honor that solemn duty and choke the virtuous impulse to worship from our collective will....
