Twenty-six years ago, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, expanding religious freedom protections for prisoners and for religious organizations or individuals seeking to challenge zoning laws. During the 2025-26 term, the Supreme Court clarified the reach of the “institutionalized persons” part of RLUIPA, holding in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections that state employees may not be held liable under the law in their personal capacities for violating a prisoner’s religious rights unless certain conditions are met. Now, the justices have been asked to address RLUIPA’s other half by taking up a dispute over religious land use protections at a proposed shrine to the Virgin Mary in northern Kentucky.
A nonprofit organization called Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. hopes to build the shrine – as well as a surrounding plaza, walking path, and retaining wall – next to Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church in Park Hills, Kentucky. In March 2021, it notified local officials of its plan and applied for a conditional use permit and setback variances, which were needed because the neighborhood is zoned for single-family and two-family residential buildings, and the construction of other types of buildings is tightly regulated. The Park Hills Board of Adjustment approved its application the next month, but a couple who live across the street from the church and had raised concerns about the shrine creating traffic issues, Joel and Elizabeth Frederic, challenged that decision in state court.
The Frederics asserted that the board misapplied relevant ordinances and that the shrine project could not move forward under current zoning regulations. Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist countered that, if the board had denied the permit, the decision would have run afoul of RLUIPA, which prohibits government officials from imposing or implementing rules for land use that substantially interfere with religious practice unless they have a compelling reason to do so. The law also bars officials from treating religious individuals or organizations less favorably than nonreligious individuals or organizations.
A state circuit court sided with Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist and the board, clearing the way for the shrine project to proceed. However, an appeals court reversed that decision, determining that the board has exceeded its authority by approving the permit and variances and that the board could deny the project without violating RLUIPA. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed that ruling, holding that enforcing zoning regulations and blocking the shrine would not violate RLUIPA because the rules for religious projects are not different than the rules for nonreligious projects and because the rules would allow for the construction of a smaller shrine on a different part of the church’s property.
In March, Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, arguing that the ruling from the Supreme Court of Kentucky stems from persistent confusion over how to apply “RLUIPA’s Substantial Burden and Equal Terms Provisions in the context of land-use-regulations.” “More than a quarter century after RLUIPA’s enactment, lower courts remain deeply divided on the statute’s two basic guarantees, offering a multiplicity of conflicting standards, factors, and burden-shifting frameworks,” the petition for review says.
Initially, the Frederics waived their right to respond to the petition, but the court requested a response. In that brief, filed last month, they contend that while there may be “minor variations” in how lower courts interpret and apply RLUIPA, the petition fails to prove that these variations would have led to a different ruling if the case had been before a different court. The Frederics add that they “don’t dispute that RLUIPA confers important rights that protect religious liberty and exercise,” but assert that it does not require a different outcome in this case.
Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic is scheduled to be considered by the justices at their “long conference” on Sept. 28.