Muslims on Long Island, Inc. v. Oyster Bay

Local zoning ordinances requiring stricter parking standards for religious buildings than comparable secular uses violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

ReligiousLiberty.TV
February 26, 2026
0 min read
Cite This Case
Muslims on Long Island, Inc. v. Oyster Bay (2025).
✓ Copied! Standard law review / practitioner format. Verify against current Bluebook edition (21st ed.).

⚠ No official reporter citation found for this case. Citation quality will improve once a reporter citation (e.g. 573 U.S. 682) is added to the case record.

Muslims on Long Island, Inc. v. Oyster Bay (2025). https://religiousliberty.tv/case-library/muslims-on-long-island-inc/
✓ Copied! For legal scholarship in social science journals. Includes URL back to this case page.

⚠ No official reporter citation found for this case. Citation quality will improve once a reporter citation (e.g. 573 U.S. 682) is added to the case record.

Muslims on Long Island, Inc. v. Oyster Bay [2025] — Local zoning ordinances requiring stricter parking standards for religious buildings than comparable secular uses violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Source: ReligiousLiberty.TV (https://religiousliberty.tv/case-library/muslims-on-long-island-inc/, accessed April 9, 2026).
✓ Copied! For general audiences, journalism, press releases, and non-legal writing.

⚠ No official reporter citation found for this case. Citation quality will improve once a reporter citation (e.g. 573 U.S. 682) is added to the case record.

Year: 2025 Outcome: Pending
Holding: Local zoning ordinances requiring stricter parking standards for religious buildings than comparable secular uses violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Uses AI to generate a structured summary. Takes ~10 seconds.

Official Documents

Coverage on ReligiousLiberty.TV

📎 Document links found in our articles: 📄 opinion

Muslims on Long Island, Inc. v. Oyster Bay is a Church & State case in 2025. The court held that local zoning ordinances requiring stricter parking standards for religious buildings than comparable secular uses violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The case resulted in a Pending outcome.