River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest

dissenting.

This is an important religious-liberty case. We took it en banc to decide a key question of statutory interpretation involving § 2(b)(1) of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(l)— the statute’s “equal terms” provision — and to resolve a conflict the panel opinion created in our caselaw.

The circuits are divided over how to read this part of RLUIPA. Until this case we had followed the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of the equal-terms provision, first announced in Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir.2004), and explained in Konikov v. Orange County, 410 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.2005), and Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton, Inc. v. Broward County, 450 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir.2006). See Digrugilliers v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 506 F.3d 612, 616 (7th Cir.2007); Vision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 1003 (7th Cir.2006). The en banc court now prefers the Third Circuit’s approach, announced in Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir.2007), though in a slightly modified form. This interpretation departs from the text, structure, and history of RLUIPA, and the conflict in our circuit caselaw remains. With respect, I cannot join the court’s opinion. We were right in Vision Church and Digrugilliers to follow the Eleventh Circuit’s lead; I would build on that start, with some elaboration.

I.

The equal-terms provision of RLUIPA is straightforward. It prohibits governments from imposing or implementing land-use regulations “in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000ec(b)(l). River of Life Kingdom Ministries is a small evangelical Christian church with a community-based mission aimed at uplifting the disadvantaged. The church bought a building in the Village of Hazel Crest, Illinois, and sought to move from a rented warehouse in Chicago Heights to its new location in Hazel Crest. The property formerly housed a car wash and is in a struggling part of town known as “Hazel Crest Proper,” which was zoned as a “B-2 Service Business District” under the Village’s then-existing zoning ordinance. A wide variety of commercial and retail uses were permitted in this zone but not churches.

More specifically, the Hazel Crest zoning ordinance authorized “[a]ll general commercial and retail uses” in the B-2 District and also enumerated the following specific permitted uses: art galleries; automobile service stations; dry-cleaning establishments and laundries; funeral parlors; gymnasiums, health clubs, and salons; hotels and motels; laboratories; medical and dental clinics; meeting halls; newspaper offices; business, professional, and public offices; resale or secondhand stores; restaurants; taverns or cocktail lounges; and accessory uses to the foregoing permitted uses. In addition, the ordinance authorized certain “special uses” (by permit) in the B-2 District: art galleries and museums; day-care centers; schools of any kind; public libraries; parking lots and storage garages; a variety of utility and public-agency buildings; recreational buildings and community centers; and taverns, cocktail lounges, and restaurants featuring live entertainment. *378The ordinance also specifically prohibited church services from being held in any “business use” building; this restriction was applicable in all business districts in the village, including the B-2 District.

River of Life applied for a special-use permit to allow it to move its church from Chicago Heights to its property in Hazel Crest Proper, but this application was denied. The church then sued Hazel Crest alleging a RLUIPA equal-terms violation (among other statutory and constitutional claims) and moved for a preliminary injunction. In the meantime the Village amended its zoning ordinance in an apparent effort to cure the rather obvious facial violation of RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision.1 The amended ordinance removed certain secular assemblies from the list of permitted and special uses authorized in the B-2 District — meeting halls, art galleries, museums, schools, libraries, recreational buildings, community centers, and certain other secular assembly uses — but continued to expressly permit commercial gymnasiums, health clubs, and salons; hotels and motels; restaurants and taverns; and day-care centers (as an allowed “special use”). River of Life maintains that these remaining permitted uses are “nonreligious assemblies” within the meaning of § 2(b)(1) of RLUIPA, and that allowing these uses in the B-2 District while excluding churches like River of Life treats religious assemblies on “less than equal terms” than “a nonreligious assembly or institution” in violation of RLUIPA.

The district court denied River of Life’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Relying on our decisions in Vision Church and Digrugilliers, the court followed the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of § 2(b)(1) and concluded that River of Life had a “slight likelihood of success on the merits.” But the court also held that this “slight likelihood” was not enough to tip the balance of harms in the church’s favor. River of Life appealed. A panel of this court abandoned the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of the equal-terms provision — previously approved in Vision Church and Digrugilliers — and instead adopted that of the Third Circuit in Lighthouse Institute. We ordered rehearing en banc to address this shift in circuit caselaw and because the interpretation of the equal-terms provision is an important and recurring legal issue that has divided the circuits and warranted the attention of the full court.

II.

A.

The equal-terms provision is best understood not in isolation but in the context of RLUIPA’s other protections for religious land uses and against the backdrop of the decade-long tug of war between Congress and the Supreme Court over the protection of religious liberty. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 714, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005) (“RLUIPA is the latest of long-running congressional efforts to accord religious exercise heightened protection from government-imposed burdens, consistent with this Court’s precedents.”). RLUIPA was enacted in the wake of City of Boeme v. Flores, which invalidated the broader Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., as exceeding Congress’s authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the limits on state power imposed by § 1 of the Amendment. 521 U.S. 507, 532-36, 117 S.Ct. 2157,138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997); see also Sts. Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. City of New Berlin, *379396 F.3d 895, 897-98 (7th Cir.2005). RFRA, in turn, had been adopted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), which altered the prevailing strict-scrutiny standard of Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), applicable to laws that substantially burden the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. See City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 512, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (“Congress enacted RFRA in direct response to the Court’s decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.” (citation omitted)).

Smith held that facially neutral and generally applicable laws that burden free-exercise rights need not satisfy a heightened standard of review — neither the compelling-interest standard of Sherbert nor any more rigorous form of review than the test for basic rationality that is applicable to all laws. 494 U.S. at 878-79, 110 S.Ct. 1595. Three years later, the Court clarified that “[f]acial neutrality [alone] is not determinative .... Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993). Without retreating from Smith, the Court held in Lukumi that a facially neutral, generally applicable law is subject to strict scrutiny if it amounts to a “religious gerrymander” or is enforced in a way that discriminates against religion or targets a particular religious group or practice for discriminatory treatment. Id. at 535-47, 113 S.Ct. 2217; see also Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771, 785-87 (7th Cir.2009) (en banc). Of course it remains true that “the minimum requirement of [free-exercise] neutrality is that a law not discriminate on its face.” Lukumi 508 U.S. at 533, 113 S.Ct. 2217. Finally, the Court reiterated in Lukumi that a law permitting “ ‘individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct’ ” is not considered “generally applicable.” Id. at 537, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (quoting Smith, 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595). In a regulatory system where exemptions from otherwise applicable rules are permitted, denying a religious-exercise exemption requires a compelling justification. Id.

While the Lukumi case was making its way to the Supreme Court, Congress was considering legislation in response to the Court’s decision in Smith; RFRA was enacted soon after the Court’s decision in Lukumi was announced. RFRA restored the compelling-interest standard of Sherbert and applied broadly to all governmental actions that substantially burdened free-exercise rights. See City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 515-16, 117 S.Ct. 2157. In City of Boerne, however, the Supreme Court invalidated the new statute as exceeding Congress’s § 5 enforcement power. The Court drew a distinction between laws that remedy or prevent constitutional violations and laws that attempt to “determine what constitutes a constitutional violation.” Id. at 519, 117 S.Ct. 2157. Only the former are valid uses of the § 5 enforcement power. Id. Laws enacted under § 5, the Court said, require “a congruence and proportionality between the [constitutional] injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.” Id. at 520, 117 S.Ct. 2157. Based on the sheer breadth of the statute as well as the inadequacy of the legislative record supporting it, the Court concluded that “RFRA is so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior. It appears, instead, to attempt a substantive *380change in constitutional protections.” Id. at 532, 117 S.Ct. 2157.

So Congress went back to the drawing board, narrowed its focus, and began compiling a legislative record of free-exercise violations in two discrete areas: laws affecting land use by religious organizations and laws affecting the religious exercise of institutionalized persons. RLUIPA was the result of this effort and was adopted in 2000, three years after the Court decided City of Boeme.2 For more on this history, see generally, Sarah Keeton Campbell, Note, Restoring RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision, 58 Duke L.J. 1071, 1076-85 (2009); Patricia E. Salkin & Amy Lavine, The Genesis of RLUIPA and Federalism: Evaluating the Creation of a Federal Statutory Right and Its Impact on Local Government, 40 Urb. Law. 195, 205-08 (2008); Roman P. Storzer & Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000: A Constitutional Response to Unconstitutional Zoning Practices, 9 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 929, 931-44 (2001); Douglas Laycock, State RFRAs and Land Use Regulation, 32 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 755, 770-82 (1999).

B.

RLUIPA stipulates that the use of real property for religious purposes is a form of “religious exercise,” see 42 U.S.C. § 2000ec-5(7)(B) (“[t]he use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose”), and codifies several strands of First Amendment free-exercise jurisprudence. See World Outreach Conference Ctr. v. United States, 591 F.3d 531, 533-35 (7th Cir.2009); see also 146 Cong. Rec. S7774-S7775 (joint statement of Sen. Hatch and Sen. Kennedy) (“The right to build, buy, or rent [in] a [physical] space is an indispensable adjunct of the core First Amendment right to assemble for religious purposes---- Each [of RLUIPA’s land-use] subsection[s] closely tracks the legal standards in one or more Supreme Court opinions, codifying those standards for greater visibility and easier enforceability.”).

More specifically, RLUIPA’s land-use provision recognizes that land-use regulation can interfere with religious-exercise rights in a variety of ways and creates statutory remedies for several different kinds of free-exercise wrongs:

§ 2000cc. Protection of land use as religious exercise

(a) Substantial burdens

(1) General rule

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(b) Discrimination and exclusion

(1) Equal terms

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal *381 terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.

(2) Nondiscrimination

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.

(3) Exclusion and limits

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that—

(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or

(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (emphasis added).

Subsection (a) of § 2000cc — the “substantial burdens” prohibition — enforces the Free Exercise Clause right to be free from state action that substantially interferes with the practice of religion without compelling justification. This provision codifies the Sherbert standard to the extent permitted by Smith and Lukumi. That is, where a land-use regime permits individualized exemptions from regulatory restrictions — and almost all of them do— the government must have a compelling justification for denying an exemption from a restriction that substantially burdens the exercise of religion. Stated differently, a government “ ‘that has a system for granting individual exemptions from a general [land-use] rule must have a compelling reason to deny a religious group an exemption that is sought on the basis of hardship or, in the language of the ... Act, of a substantial burden on ... religious exercise.’3” World Outreach, 591 F.3d at 534 (quoting City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d at 897) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Subsection (b) of § 2000cc enforces the Free Exercise Clause right to be free from state action that discriminates on the basis of religion or religious practice, or discriminates among or between religions. The remedies provided in subsection (b) do not require proof that the challenged state action amounts to a “substantial burden” on religious exercise. This subsection is divided into three parts. Subsection (b)(1) is the equal-terms provision, at issue here. It codifies a particular kind of equality principle; No land-use regulation may treat “a religious assembly or institution” on “less than equal terms” than “a nonreligious assembly or institution.” 42 U.S.C. *382§ 2000cc(b)(l). Subsection (b)(2) states a more general antidiscrimination rule; it prohibits the imposition or implementation of a land-use regulation that “discriminates against an assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.” Id. § 2000cc(b)(2). Subsection (b)(3) prohibits land-use regulations that operate to “totally exclude” a religious assembly from and a jurisdiction or “unreasonably limit” a religious assembly, institution, or structure within a jurisdiction. Id. § 2000ec(b)(3)(A), (B).

There is some obvious overlap in these statutory provisions. A land-use regulation that “totally excludes” a religious assembly from a jurisdiction in violation of subsection (b)(3) will also likely be a “substantial burden” on the religious assembly in violation of subsection (a)(1). A “substantial burden” on a religious assembly might also be discriminatory in violation of subsection (b)(2). But each of RLUIPA’s land-use subsections captures a distinct kind of free-exercise harm and must be given its own force and effect. See Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) (“Redundancies across statutes are not unusual events in drafting, and so long as there is no positive repugnancy between two laws ..., a court must give effect to both.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d at 900; Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 762 (7th Cir.2003) (RLUIPA’s land-use provisions are “operatively independent of one another.”).

C.

The equal-terms provision appears first in RLUIPA’s list of remedies for “[d]iscrimination and exclusion” but is not phrased as a general anti-discrimination rule. RLUIPA has one of those; § 2000cc(b)(2) contains general antidiscrimination language prohibiting governments from imposing or implementing any land-use regulation that “discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.” (Emphasis added.) The language of the equal-terms provision is different; it prohibits governments from imposing or implementing a land-use regulation “in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000ce(b)(l) (emphasis added). This language is plain. To prove an equal-terms violation, a plaintiff “religious assembly or institution” need only establish that the challenged land-use regulation treats it on “less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.” There is no requirement that the challenged regulation (or the regulatory authority that adopted or enforced it) have a discriminatory purpose or motive or evince anti-religious bias. This contrasts with the antidiscrimination provision contained in § 2000cc(b)(2), which targets regulations that discriminate “on the basis of religion.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, a land-use regulation that on its face or in its operative effect or application treats a religious assembly or institution less well than a nonreligious assembly or institution will violate the equal-terms provision even if it was adopted or implemented for reasons unrelated to religious discrimination.

III.

A.

The Eleventh Circuit was the first to consider the scope of the equal-terms provision and has the most extensive body of caselaw interpreting and applying this part of RLUIPA. In Midrash Sephardi the Eleventh Circuit held that although the equal-terms provision “has the ‘feel’ of an *383equal protection law, it lacks the ‘similarly situated’ requirement usually found in equal protection analysis.” 366 F.3d at 1229. Accordingly, the court declined to import a “similarly situated comparator” requirement into RLUIPA equal-terms analysis. Instead, the court said, the equal-terms provision has a more “direct and narrow focus” and by its terms requires the court to evaluate whether the challenged land-use regulation treats a “religious assembly or institution” on “less than equal terms” than “a non-religious assembly or institution.” Id. at 1230. Because RLUIPA does not define “assembly” or “institution,” the court consulted dictionary definitions and concluded that “a natural and ordinary understanding of ‘assembly’ [i]s a group gathered for a common purpose.” Id. at 1231. The zoning ordinance at issue in Midrash Sephardi permitted private clubs and lodge halls in the municipality’s business district but excluded churches and synagogues. Because private clubs and lodge halls were commonly understood as secular “assemblies” and were permitted in the zone while churches and synagogues were excluded, the Midrash Sephardi court concluded that the challenged ordinance facially violated the equal-terms provision. Id.

The court took the analysis a step further, however, and applied strict scrutiny to the statutory violation. “RLUIPA’s equal terms provision codifies the SmithLukumi line of precedent,” the court reasoned, so “a violation of § (b)’s equal treatment provision, consistent with the analysis employed in Lukumi, must undergo strict scrutiny.” Id. at 1232. The municipality’s proffered justification for excluding churches and synagogues from the business district — the “interests of retail synergy” — flunked the compelling-interest test. Id. at 1235. The Eleventh Circuit completed its analysis in Midrash Sephardi by considering whether the equal-terms provision was a permissible use of Congress’s § 5 enforcement power as understood in City of Boeme. The court concluded that it was, largely because the equal-terms provision codified the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence. Id. at 1236-40 (holding that § 2000cc(b)(l) reflects free-exercise jurisprudence and is consistent with existing Equal Protection and Establishment Clause caselaw).

In two subsequent cases, the Eleventh Circuit elaborated on Midrash Sephardi and adapted its analysis to “as applied” challenges under the equal-terms provision. See Primera Iglesia, 450 F.3d at 1307-08; Konikov, 410 F.3d at 1324-28. Primera Iglesia — the more recent of the two cases — offered this summary of the circuit’s approach to RLUIPA equal-terms cases:

Based on a review of our case law construing the Equal Terms provision and reviewing closely related Supreme Court precedent arising under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, we can discern at least three distinct kinds of Equal Terms statutory violations: (1) a statute that facially differentiates between religious and nonreligious assemblies or institutions; (2) a facially neutral statute that is nevertheless “gerrymandered” to place a burden solely on religious, as opposed to nonreligious, assemblies or institutions; or (3) a truly neutral statute that is selectively enforced against religious, as opposed to nonreligious assemblies or institutions.

450 F.3d at 1308. In the first two types of claims, the equal-terms provision focuses on the content of the challenged land-use regulation to determine whether it expressly treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms than a nonreligious assembly or institution, or was “gerrymandered” so that its unequal *384effect falls almost entirely on a religious assembly or institution, as in Lukumi. Id. at 1308-09. In an as-applied “selective enforcement” claim, however, the court held that an equal-terms plaintiff will generally be required to identify a similarly situated nonreligious assembly or institution that was treated more favorably. Id. at 1311; Konikov, 410 F.3d at 1327-29.

B.

We have cited Midrash Sephardi, Konikov, and Primera Iglesia with approval and specifically followed the Eleventh Circuit's approach in two prior cases. See Digrugilliers, 506 F.3d at 616; Vision Church, 468 F.3d at 1002-03. The claimant in Vision Church maintained (among other statutory and constitutional claims) that a special-use permit requirement in a local zoning ordinance violated RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision. To resolve this claim, we relied on the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Konikov, noting first that as a general matter, there was no need to identify a “similarly situated” nonreligious land use for comparison against the religious claimant. “ ‘For purposes of a RLUIPA equal terms challenge, the standard for determining whether it is proper to compare a religious group to a nonreligious group is not whether one is “similarly situated” to the other, as in our familiar equal protection jurisprudence.” Vision Church, 468 F.3d at 1002-03 (quoting Konikov, 410 F.3d at 1324). We looked instead to the text of the equal-terms provision to find the relevant comparison: “[T]he pertinent question is whether the ‘land use regulation ... treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.’ ” Id. at 1003. Vision Church then quoted at length from the passage in Primera Iglesia summarizing the three ways in which RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision might be violated. Id. (quoting Primera Iglesia, 450 F.3d at 1308). Because the permit requirement at issue in Vision Church was facially neutral, did not “target religion through religious ‘gerrymandering,’ ” and had not been selectively enforced against the claimant church, there was no equal-terms violation. Id.

Digrugilliers built on Vision Church and is very much like this case. In Digrugilliers a municipal zoning ordinance excluded churches from a commercial district but permitted a variety of other secular assemblies, including auditoriums, assembly halls, community centers, senior centers, day-care centers, art galleries, civic clubs, and libraries. 506 F.3d at 614-15. A Baptist minister sued, claiming an equal-terms violation, and like River of Life, moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the motion and the minister appealed. Like the Village of Hazel Crest here, the municipality in Digrugilliers argued that the exclusion of churches from the commercial district was justified because churches would inhibit commercial development within the zone. As additional support for this argument, the municipality noted that state law prohibited the sale of alcohol or pornography within 200 and 500 feet, respectively, of a church. We reversed, relying on Vision Church and the Eleventh Circuit’s decisions in Primera Iglesia and Midrash Sephardi. Id. at 616. We focused not on the economic-development objectives of the municipality but on the ordinance’s facial differentiation between religious and nonreligious assemblies, and dismissed the municipality’s reliance on state laws protecting churches from incompatible adjacent land uses. We said: “Government cannot, by granting churches special privileges ( ... the right of a church to be free from offensive land uses in its vicinity), furnish the reason for excluding churches from otherwise suitable districts.” Id. We *385concluded in Digrugilliers that the minister’s equal-terms claim had “at least some, and possibly great, merit,” id. at 618, and remanded for application of the remaining preliminary-injunction criteria.

C.

After our decisions in Vision Church and Digrugilliers, the Third Circuit weighed in on the equal-terms provision, disagreeing with the Eleventh Circuit and requiring all equal-terms plaintiffs to identify a similarly situated nonreligious assembly or institution for comparison; the “similarity” between the claimant and the comparator, moreover, was to be evaluated by reference to the “purpose” of the regulation. More specifically, in Lighthouse Institute a divided Third Circuit panel held that “a [land use] regulation will violate the Equal Terms provision only if it treats religious assemblies or institutions less well than secular assemblies or institutions that are similarly situated as to the regulatory purpose.” 510 F.3d at 266.

IV.

A.

My colleagues change course from our previous adherence to the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of the equal-terms provision, though they do so while leaving Digrugilliers and Vision Church in place.4 The en banc court adopts the Third Circuit’s approach, albeit with a slight “shift of focus.” Majority op. at 371. I think this is a mistake. The Third Circuit’s interpretation departs from the text of the equal-terms provision and from the structure of RLUIPA’s land-use provisions read as a whole. It conflates the specific protections contained in the equal-terms provision with the more general antidiscrimination rule contained in subsection (b)(2). On the Third Circuit’s understanding, there is no difference in the two provisions. See Corley v. United States, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1558, 1566, 173 L.Ed.2d 443 (2009) (“[O]ne of the most basic interpretive canons [is] that [a] statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Tellingly, the Lighthouse Institute majority did not try to make an argument for its interpretation from the text and structure of the statute. Instead, the court rested its holding on a reading of the Supreme Court’s free-exercise caselaw — in particular, on