"Roman P. Storzer is a Washington lawyer who has represented dozens of religious groups on land use cases and is one of the country's most experienced litigators in this field." Religion Newswriters Association, (May 2, 2005). The Center for State and Local Government Law at UC-Hastings College of Law has described Mr Storzer as "of the country’s leading RLUIPA advocates." The following are representative clients Roman Storzer has assisted in church-state matters, both in private practice and as the former Director of Litigation of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty: Living Faith Christian Center, Pennsauken, New Jersey: Sued a redevelopment authority to prevent its church from being taken through eminent domain. Hale O Kaula Church, Maui County, Hawaii: After being denied a special use permit, the church filed suit and obtained the permit, along with a $700,000 settlement. Great Lakes Society, Georgetown, Michigan: Being refused a special use permit for a church, the Society sued and won in court, obtaining an order overruling the township's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings. Cottonwood Christian Center, Cypress, California: After having been denied a conditional use permit and the City attempted to take its property through eminent doman, the church obtained an order preventing the city from doing so. Calvary Chapel O'Hare, Franklin Park, Illinois: Zoning ordinance prohibited churches in a commercial district; after church filed suit, the village amended its code to permit places of worship and settled with the church. Mr. Storzer has also written numerous briefs amicus curiae in such cases: Mitchell v. Helms (Supreme Court of the United States): Arguing that the Supreme Court should discard the "pervasively sectarian" test in Establishment Clause cases as a remnant of Nineteenth Century anti-Catholic bigotry. Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals): Arguing that preventing a religious organization from using its property for worship "substantially burdens" its religious exercise. Humphrey v. Lane (Supreme Court of Ohio): Arguing in a public employment case that the Ohio Constitution provides even greater protection of religious liberty than the federal Constitution. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Linn (Supreme Court of Oregon): Arguing that a denial of a discretionary land use permit may be an unconstitutional burden on religious exercise. San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals): Arguing that "strict scrutiny" judicial review may be appropriate in First Amendment cases involving land use regulation. Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne (Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals): Arguing that preventing a church from operating a day care center is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny and substantially burdens a church's religious exercise.