Bernards Township v. Morrison was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved a dispute between Bernards Township, New Jersey and a local resident, Michael Morrison, over the Township’s zoning regulations. Morrison had applied for a permit to build a single-family home on a lot he owned in the Township, but the Township denied his application because the lot was zoned for agricultural use. Morrison then sued the Township, arguing that the zoning regulations violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Morrison, ruling that the Township’s zoning regulations violated RLUIPA. The Court held that the Township’s zoning regulations imposed a substantial burden on Morrison’s religious exercise, and that the Township had failed to demonstrate that the regulations were the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. The Court also held that the Township had failed to provide Morrison with reasonable alternative sites for his proposed home. In its decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of protecting religious exercise under RLUIPA and made clear that local governments must take into account the religious exercise of their citizens when enacting zoning regulations. The Court’s decision in Bernards Township v. Morrison is an important victory for religious liberty and will have far-reaching implications for zoning regulations across the country.

In the dissenting opinion of Bernards Township v. Morrison, Justice Alito argued that the court should have found in favor of Bernards Township and not against them as it had done. He believed that they were within their rights to deny a permit for building a mosque on land owned by an Islamic organization because there was evidence that showed traffic congestion would be caused if it were built. Furthermore, he stated that this decision did not constitute religious discrimination since other places of worship such as churches and synagogues had been denied permits in similar circumstances before. In conclusion, Justice Alito argued that denying the permit was reasonable given all these factors and thus should have been upheld instead of overturned by the Supreme Court majority ruling.