Kaahumanu

■ This case arises from the Maui County Council’s denial of a conditional use permit that would have allowed plaintiffs-appel-lees (“plaintiffs”) to conduct a commercial wedding business on beach-front residential property. Plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, against Maui County and members of the Maui County Council in their individual and official capacities after the Council voted not to grant the permit. ■The defendants-appellants (“defendants’’ 1 ) moved to dismiss the claims against the Council members in their individual capacities, arguing that the .individual-capacity claims were barred by legislative immunity. The district court, denied the motion to dismiss the individual-capacity . claims. The defendants now appeal the denial of legislative immunity.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Maui may be to weddings in the first decade of this century what Reno was to divorces in the middle decades of the last. 1 As the Maui Visitor’s Bureau puts it:

Aloha from Maui Visitors Bureau, Weddings/Honeymoons, at http://www.visit-maui.com/index.html (last visited Jan. 6,…