Supreme Court to hear Kentucky church shrine zoning dispute

How the shrine approval was overturned

The proposed grotto would measure 16 feet by 39 feet, according to the Kentucky Supreme Court’s opinion. The existing church occupies a residential site and predates the local zoning code. The grotto, however, was proposed for a separate neighboring residential parcel.

Park Hills’ rules required churches seeking conditional-use approval to be adjacent to an arterial street. The application acknowledged that the proposed accessory structure was not directly permitted under the ordinance. Kenton County planning staff recommended denial because the site did not meet the arterial-street condition.

The Park Hills Board of Adjustment went the other way. After an April 15, 2021, public hearing, it voted 4-1 to approve a conditional-use permit and setback variances, subject to a property-transfer condition. The proposed site was under a perpetual lease when the organization applied; it was deeded to the organization on June 22, 2021.

The Frederics challenged the board’s action. On Dec. 18, 2025, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the board lacked authority to grant the permit and vacated its approval. It also rejected the organization’s argument that denying the permit violated federal protections for religious land use. The dispute is therefore about more than neighbors objecting to a proposed structure: a state court has ruled that the local board could not approve it under the zoning rules.

The religious-use question before the Court

The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, limits certain government land-use actions that impose a substantial burden on religious exercise. Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist says the shrine serves its religious mission and argues that preventing a religious organization from building a religious structure on its property can meet that standard. Its petition asks the justices to revisit the Kentucky court’s conclusion.

The state court found that the organization knew the accessory structure was not directly allowed on the proposed parcel. It also found that the organization had not shown why it could not build a grotto on the existing church property. Under the standard it applied, the court concluded that the permit’s denial did not substantially burden religious exercise.

The Frederics’ brief opposing review presses that point: They argue the organization pursued the parcel knowing the zoning restriction and did not establish that its religious plans depended on building there. Their concern about additional neighborhood traffic is an objection to the project, not an established prediction of what the grotto would bring.

For the organization, the question is whether a land-use rule can place a legally significant burden on worship even when a court identifies a possible alternative location. For the neighbors, it is whether the federal protection overrides a zoning limit the organization knew about without proof that the existing church site would not work. The justices’ answer could shape how this substantial-burden question is assessed; agreeing to hear it signals no answer yet.

What the Supreme Court has not decided

The organization also asked the justices to consider a separate RLUIPA question about whether religious institutions receive unequal treatment compared with nonreligious uses. The Court granted review only on the first question, concerning substantial burden. It has not taken up that separate equal-terms claim.

Nor has the Court restored the board’s permit. The Kentucky ruling against the project remains the decision under review, while the arguments about religious exercise and the application of local zoning await a federal answer. The Supreme Court docket records the Oct. 1 grant but does not yet set a date for arguments.