The Supreme Court to Hear Kentucky Church’s Grotto Case

The Supreme Court has decided to take on a case involving a Kentucky church’s attempt to create a prayer grotto on its grounds. This case brings into question what exactly is meant by a “substantial burden” on religious exercise according to federal land-use law.

Ryan Gardner, a senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, representing the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, shared that the outcome could have far-reaching effects beyond just this proposed Catholic shrine in Park Hills, Kentucky. “This is a massive case for religious liberty,” he emphasized, noting it could influence how zoning laws are applied across the U.S.

At the heart of this case is a proposed grotto measuring 16 by 39 feet, intended to feature a shrine to the Virgin Mary, along with a plaza, walking path, and retaining wall. Interestingly, Gardner likened the size of the grotto to that of a swimming pool, which gives some perspective on its scale.

The church submitted its application for a conditional-use permit back in March 2021 to construct the grotto in honor of the Virgin Mary’s apparition to Saint Bernadette in Lourdes, France. The church building itself has been there for around a century, which even predates the city’s zoning laws established in 1974.

But the property history gets a bit tricky. The grotto’s plans include an adjacent parcel that had a long-term lease, which was to be passed to the church upon project approval. According to Gardner, unlike many other religious land-use cases, this conflict didn’t initially involve a tussle with local government.

Initially, in April 2021, the Park Hills Board of Adjustment greenlighted the church’s request. However, two local residents, Joel and Elizabeth Frederic, contested that decision in court.

Despite a trial court ruling in favor of the church, the Kentucky Court of Appeals subsequently reversed that decision. They concluded that the board had overstepped its authority and found no violation of federal religious land-use laws. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed this ruling in December 2025, leading the church to seek a review by the Supreme Court.

The case centers on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which aims to protect religious organizations from certain restrictions on their property use. Gardner pointed out that RLUIPA intersects two critical rights in the country: religious liberty and property rights.

The church appealed to the justices to consider two questions under RLUIPA, but the Supreme Court agreed to review just one—whether denying a religious organization the right to construct a religious structure on its property qualifies as a “substantial burden” under the law.

Gardner expressed concerns that the lower courts have taken varying approaches to RLUIPA since it was enacted in 2000. This varying interpretation has left religious organizations with inconsistent levels of protection across different jurisdictions. He believes the Supreme Court has a chance here to create a clearer standard nationally.

The Missionaries stated in their petition that there is considerable confusion among federal and state courts regarding what constitutes a “substantial burden” concerning land-use restrictions under RLUIPA. On the other hand, the Frederics contended that the appellate courts usually look at similar factors and differing outcomes might stem from differing factual circumstances. They also claimed the Missionaries haven’t shown that there are no alternative sites available for the grotto.

An attorney representing the Frederics has not yet replied to requests for comments.

This case brings together two significant legal principles: the right to religious practice and local governments’ authority to control property use. While Gardner acknowledges the legitimate function of zoning in local government, he argues such regulations still need to adhere to federal protections of religious practices. He believes the implications of this case go well beyond just the church’s grotto in Kentucky.

According to Gardner, a ruling from the Supreme Court could influence similar disputes involving places of worship and organizations wishing to use their properties for religious purposes. He warned that an overly narrow interpretation of the federal law might lead to serious repercussions for religious property use nationwide.

Ultimately, for the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, this pivotal case—one that could reshape religious land-use law in the country—began with a relatively small vision: a modest 600-square-foot space dedicated to prayer.