Freethought-Now

The Supreme Court’s October term just started — and there are already warning signs for what’s to come.

On Oct.1, the court granted review of a Kentucky case that seeks to expand the right of churches to claim exemptions to zoning laws and other land-use restrictions. The Roberts Court is once again poised to rule in favor of a Christian plaintiff demanding the right to break a law that everyone else has to follow.

Before we get into the potential implications of the Court’s review, let’s look at some background on the case, Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist Inc. v. Frederic. The Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist is a Catholic organization that owns property in Park Hills, Ky., where a Catholic church, Our Lady of Lourdes, already sits on part of that property. Saint John decided that it wanted to build a grotto — consisting of a shrine to the Virgin Mary, a plaza, a walking path and a retaining wall — on the property near the church. In order to build the grotto, it needed a “conditional use permit” from the Park Hills zoning board. Basically, the city would have to grant Saint John an official exception to one of the city’s zoning ordinances. In March 2021, Saint John officially asked the Park Hills zoning board for the permit, but there were a few problems with its request.

For one, the Catholic church on the property is already classified as a “conditional use,” meaning that it violates the city’s current zoning laws. The church was built before Park Hills’ current zoning laws were passed, and it sits in a district that is now otherwise zoned for single and two-family residential buildings (not houses of worship). The church was grandfathered in when the current zoning laws were passed; it’s not uncommon for pre-existing buildings of all kinds to be grandfathered in when cities adopt new zoning laws. No one is arguing that the already existing Catholic church needs to be torn down. The problem here is that Saint John is asking for a second “conditional use permit” to build the grotto, on top of the fact that the church itself is already an exception to the city’s rules. And the church’s proposed grotto would violate Park Hills’ current zoning laws for several reasons, including that the grotto wouldn’t be located on an “arterial street,” which is a fancy term for a larger street that can handle more traffic and congestion than the typical residential street.

In the spring of 2021, the city’s zoning board violated its own policies when it granted Saint John’s request to build its grotto. Unsurprisingly, a lawsuit ensued. The Federics, a couple who lives across from the church and proposed grotto, sued the Park Hills zoning board, arguing that the board violated the law by granting Saint John’s request to construct a grotto that didn’t meet the legal requirements. The Federics, among other community members, had objected to the grotto on the basis that traffic and parking in the neighborhood are already a problem and the church’s grotto — which is intended to attract visitors — would only worsen congestion.

The case made its way through Kentucky state courts. The Kentucky Court of Appeals decided that the Park Hills zoning board was wrong to grant Saint John the conditional use permit, ruling that enforcing the zoning law against Saint John would not violate its religious exercise rights.

Eventually, the case landed in front of the Kentucky Supreme Court. Saint John argued that if Park Hills prevented it from building the grotto, then the city would be guilty of violating its rights under a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). I’ve discussed the law in previous articles, but the gist in this context is that this bad federal law grants religious people and institutions exemptions from substantially burdensome land use regulations, such as zoning laws, that apply to everyone else, forcing the government to prove that the law in question furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive way of furthering that interest.

Saint John claimed that if Park Hills didn’t make an exception to the law and allow it to build a grotto where it’s not legally allowed to build it, then the city would be “substantially burdening” Saint John’s religious exercise in violation of the law.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky didn’t buy Saint John’s argument. In December 2025, Kentucky’s highest court ruled that Saint John had failed to prove that Park Hills’ zoning law “substantially burdened” its religious exercise. The court laid out several points supporting its ruling: For one, Saint John could choose to build a smaller grotto on its property in an area that would not violate the zoning law. Saint John didn’t adequately explain why its Catholic faith required the grotto to be the exact size or in the exact location that it had proposed. Saint John also didn’t show that it incurred any expenses or unexpected delays when it sought a conditional use permit from the Park Hills zoning board, but evidence did show that Saint John knew full well that the proposed grotto would violate the zoning law. The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that Saint John failed to show that its religious exercise would be substantially burdened by having to build its grotto somewhere else.

Now, it would be remiss not to acknowledge that zoning laws are a topic of debate on the local, state and national levels, and they are certainly susceptible to abuse by bad actors. However, there are legitimate reasons for zoning laws to exist, assuming they’re written to actually benefit the entire community and enforced in good faith (which is sadly not always the case). Zoning laws can help protect wildlife and place limits on if or when green spaces can be developed. Cities, like Park Hills, also have a genuine interest in ensuring that new developments of any kind do not impair or worsen the flow of traffic in a given area. Anyone with a daily commute can relate to how frustrating it is if a certain road or neighborhood is constantly experiencing traffic jams.

But this case isn’t really about zoning laws: It’s about a Christian group once again asking the Supreme Court of the United States for special treatment. The fact that the court has taken up this case suggests that it’s interested in overruling the Kentucky Supreme Court — and if the Roberts Court’s track record is any indication, that is exactly what will happen.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Saint John, it could make it more difficult for cities to enforce zoning laws against houses of worship and other religious institutions seeking privileges at the expense of the rest of us. An expansive ruling from the highest court in the land could make it much easier for churches nationwide to prove that a zoning law (or similar restrictions) substantially burdens its religious exercise. In the worst case scenario, cities across the country would be hard pressed to come up with a strong enough reason to justify that so-called “burden.” This would be a huge boon to religious groups, giving them a simplified path to side-stepping laws that everyone else must follow, to our detriment.

The nation’s highest court bestowing yet another special exception upon religious groups is not going to help or benefit anyone other than the pushy and aggressive religious groups themselves. I would love for the Supreme Court to prove me wrong, but odds are that I’ll be right.

Disclaimer: The views in this column are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The post Thou shalt not zone? Supreme Court once again poised to favor Christian plaintiff appeared first on Freethought Now.