Supreme Court agrees to take up zoning dispute over Kentucky church shrine

A dispute over whether a local zoning ordinance in Kentucky that prohibited a Catholic church from building a religious shrine next to its property is legal is headed to the Supreme Court.

The justices agreed Thursday to take up the request from Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, a church in the Cincinnati suburbs that was denied a permit to construct a large grotto honoring the Virgin Mary in an adjacent lot.

At issue is whether that denial violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which is designed in part to protect against zoning laws that impose a “substantial burden” on religious exercise.

“Telling a church it can’t build a modest place for prayer and reflection on its own property is outrageous,” said Kelly Shackelford, the President, CEO and Chief Counsel at First Liberty, one of the groups representing the church. “Federal law provides clear protections for how faith-based organizations can use their property to support their mission. This is an important case for religious freedom.”

The Park Hills zoning board initially allowed the church to move forward with the plans, despite a town ordinance that restricts land use for certain spaces to arterial streets.

Neighbors who had raised concerns that the 39-foot grotto would worsen traffic problems sued, arguing that granting the conditional use permit violated state and federal law.

A state judge sided with the church, but the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed.

Affirming that ruling, the Kentucky Supreme Court said the ordinance did not substantially infringe on the church’s rights because it could construct a smaller shrine on its existing plot. It also noted that the church was aware of the prohibition before it sought the permit.

The church argued in its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that was a misunderstanding of the RLUIPA statute and asked the justices to clarify the scope of its protections.

“The decision below exacerbates the deep fractures on what qualifies as a ‘substantial burden’ among federal and state appellate courts — a well-recognized and longstanding conflict of authority,” lawyers representing the church wrote. “Given RLUIPA’s critical role in preserving religious liberty, this Court should grant review to clarify its application in the land-use context.”

Lawyers for the neighbors had argued the church’s petition was not the proper vehicle to take up the matter.

The case is now one of several implicating religious liberty that will be heard by the Supreme Court this term, with decisions expected by summer of next year.