Most of the time, zoning fights are intensely local. A setback line here, a conditional-use permit there, and neighbors arguing about traffic or noise. But every so often, a small land-use dispute turns into a Supreme Court test of how federal law protects religious practice on real property.
That is what is happening now with a Catholic community in Park Hills, Kentucky, and a proposed prayer grotto behind St. John Church. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, and the outcome could influence how religious land-use protections are applied in zoning disputes across the country.
Join the Discussion
What is this grotto?
The project at the center of the case is a proposed 16-by-39-foot grotto. Court records describe it as including a shrine to the Virgin Mary, plus a plaza, a walking path, a retaining wall, and related site features. The footprint is about 600 square feet, which the church’s attorneys have likened to the size of a swimming pool.
The Missionaries of St. John the Baptist sought permission in March 2021 to build the grotto behind the church building in honor of the Virgin Mary’s apparition to Saint Bernadette in Lourdes, France. The church building itself has been on the property for nearly a century and predates the city’s zoning ordinance, which was adopted in 1974.
One wrinkle matters for zoning lawyers: the proposal also involved an adjacent parcel. That parcel was initially subject to a perpetual lease that would be transferred to the religious organization as a condition of approval.
How it got to the Supreme Court
Unlike many religious land-use disputes, the church’s initial fight was not with the local government. The Park Hills Board of Adjustment approved the church’s permit in April 2021. Two neighboring property owners, Joel and Elizabeth Frederic, objected and challenged that approval in Kentucky state court.
After the neighbors’ challenge, the litigation moved through Kentucky’s courts with mixed results.
- A trial court ruled for the church.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed. It concluded the Board of Adjustment exceeded its authority in approving the project and also found no violation of federal religious land-use protections.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the RLUIPA ruling in December 2025.
The Missionaries then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in. The justices agreed to hear one question: whether prohibiting a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property can qualify as a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under a federal statute known as RLUIPA.
The law at the center
RLUIPA stands for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. It is a federal law enacted in 2000 to protect religious institutions from certain burdens on the use of their property.
As Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, put it, “RLUIPA is at the intersection of two very critical rights in this country: the rights of religious liberty and property rights.”
Why “substantial burden” matters
Here is the practical problem. RLUIPA uses the phrase “substantial burden,” and Gardner says lower courts have developed different approaches to that question since the law was enacted. Gardner called it “a massive case for religious liberty because it has the potential to impact every single zoning law in this country.”
The Missionaries have argued the country is split over how to evaluate substantial burden under RLUIPA, meaning a religious group’s odds can depend heavily on geography. The Frederics have pushed back, saying courts tend to look to similar factors and that different outcomes often reflect different facts. They also argued the Missionaries did not show that other locations for a grotto were unavailable.
That disagreement is what the Supreme Court is being asked to address: how demanding the legal test should be when a religious group says a land-use restriction interferes with its religious exercise.
What this could change
The case puts two significant areas of law alongside one another: religious exercise and the authority of local governments to regulate property use.
While Gardner acknowledged zoning serves a legitimate role, he argued those regulations remain subject to federal protections for religious exercise. He warned that an overly narrow interpretation of the federal law could have “dire consequences” for religious land use around the country.
A ruling could affect disputes involving churches, synagogues, ministries, and other religious organizations seeking to use their properties for worship or religious activities, Gardner said. It could also shape what local governments and courts must consider when a religious institution says a zoning-related restriction creates a substantial burden.
Quick takeaway
- The Supreme Court will hear a case involving the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist and a proposed prayer grotto in Park Hills, Kentucky.
- The key legal issue is what qualifies as a “substantial burden” under RLUIPA when a religious institution is prohibited from building a religious structure on its own property.
- The Court’s ruling could strengthen or narrow religious land-use protections and influence how zoning disputes involving religious property are litigated.