{"id":2603055,"date":"2026-05-15T08:51:57","date_gmt":"2026-05-15T12:51:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-should-state-the-obvious-religious-orgs-can-use-their-own-land-for-religious-purposes\/"},"modified":"2026-05-15T08:56:21","modified_gmt":"2026-05-15T12:56:21","slug":"scotus-should-state-the-obvious-religious-orgs-can-use-their-own-land-for-religious-purposes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-should-state-the-obvious-religious-orgs-can-use-their-own-land-for-religious-purposes\/","title":{"rendered":"Religious Orgs Can Use Their Own Land For Religious Purposes"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">20<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fscotus-should-state-the-obvious-religious-orgs-can-use-their-own-land-for-religious-purposes%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2603055&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The article argues that a case involving the catholic \u201cMissionaries of st. John the Baptist\u201d in Kentucky-seeking to build a modest Marian grotto on church-owned property-raises serious religious-freedom concerns even though it initially seems like a routine zoning dispute.<\/p>\n<p>After local zoning approval, nearby neighbors challenged the project, claiming it violated the zoning code because it was not located adjacent to an \u201carterial street.\u201d State courts ultimately sided with the neighbors and blocked the grotto. The author says this decision is troubling not just factually, but legally, because it rejects the religious group\u2019s claim under the federal Religious Land Use and institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).<\/p>\n<p>RLUIPA is described as meant to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/court-upholds-religious-schools-title-ix-exemption\/\" title=\"Court Upholds ... Schools Title IX Exemption\">protect religious organizations<\/a> from land-use rules that impose a \u201cample burden\u201d on religious exercise, requiring strict scrutiny by the government.However, the Kentucky Supreme Court is criticized for adopting a \u201csubstantial burden\u201d test (from a prior case called *Livingston*) that, in the author\u2019s view, sets an excessively high bar. Under that approach, most zoning challenges fail because the rule doesn\u2019t rise to the threshold of \u201csubstantial burden,\u201d especially when courts suggest the religious group could instead build a smaller project or choose another location on its property. The author argues this effectively defeats RLUIPA\u2019s protections by shifting the burden onto religious groups rather than requiring the government to justify interference with religious land use.<\/p>\n<p>The article also notes that while the particular plaintiffs\u2019 church background is discussed, the legal principles apply broadly to many religious organizations, not only those with specific structures or approvals. It then briefly turns to a wider policy concern: protections like RLUIPA could perhaps be exploited by groups viewed as outside the traditional understanding of religion,raising questions about how courts should distinguish legitimate religious exercise from bad-faith or harmful activity.<\/p>\n<p>the author calls for the U.S. Supreme Court to here the case and correct what they see as a \u201csubstantial burden\u201d standard that guts RLUIPA, warning that land-use disputes may not make headlines but can considerably effect whether religion can function in public life without unnecessary government interference.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>The Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, a Catholic religious community in Kentucky, had a simple and modest plan: to build a Marian grotto (a simple outdoor religious display with statutes where people can pray) on property already owned by the religious organization. The <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" ><a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/betsy-mccaughey-dems-attack-suburban-homeowners\/\" title=\"Betsy McCaughey: Dems Attack Suburban Homeowners\">local zoning board<\/a> approved<\/a> the land use. This hardly seems like a controversial scenario warranting a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, but a few neighbors objected and argued that building the grotto violated the local zoning code because the grotto was not being built next to an \u201carterial street\u201d \u2014 essentially a highway.<\/p>\n<p>The neighbors cited possible concerns about increased traffic and parking, but those objections seem questionable in the circumstances. The request was not for an amphitheater or a mega-church that would draw new followers, but merely for a grotto on the property.<\/p>\n<p>When the neighbors appealed the zoning approval, the Kentucky Court of Appeals and the Kentucky Supreme Court sided with the neighbors and prohibited the religious organization from building its grotto. Beyond the factual issue that a grotto on a church property is unlikely to disturb anyone, there are several concerning legal implications flowing from the Kentucky Supreme Court decision.<\/p>\n<p>The reality that the appeal of a complaining neighbor can overrule both the decision of a local zoning board and the right of a religious organization to use its own land for religious purposes is disturbing enough. But there is a particular religious freedom issue of national legal importance that is front and center in this case: The Kentucky Supreme Court rejected the religious organization\u2019s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claim.<\/p>\n<p>RLUIPA is a federal statute that Congress passed to ensure that, when land-use laws impose a substantial burden on religious exercise, those laws will be subject to strict scrutiny. RLUIPA exists precisely to prevent situations like that in <em>Missionaries of St. John the Baptist<\/em>. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/crt\/religious-land-use-and-institutionalized-persons-act\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">RLUIPA<\/a>\u2019s purpose is to prohibit \u201czoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches or other religious assemblies or institutions absent the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The statute seems clear enough in its purpose and effect. Yet the test adopted by the Kentucky Supreme Court (based on a precedent from a case called <a href=\"https:\/\/www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/17a0117p-06.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Livingston<\/em><\/a>  in the 6th Circuit) places an unreasonably high bar on what is considered a \u201csubstantial burden.\u201d If a religious organization cannot show that the burden imposed by the land-use ordinance rises to the level of a \u201csubstantial burden,\u201d then the protections of RLUIPA do not apply. The test articulated in <em>Livingston <\/em>and adopted by the Kentucky Supreme Court to determine when an action constitutes a \u201csubstantial burden\u201d renders the crucial protection for religious land use in RLUIPA practically meaningless.<\/p>\n<p>That is why the <em>Missionaries of St. John the Baptist <\/em>case is about more than this particular religious organization\u2019s attempt to build a Marian grotto in Kentucky. Congress passed\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0RLUIPA to ensure that religious organizations can use their property for religious purposes without being impeded by minute zoning ordinances and NIMBY neighbors. If courts use an analysis that effectively considers most zoning laws as a less-than-substantial burden on religious exercise, RLUIPA is almost completely gutted and religious organizations are left without the protection RLUIPA was meant to provide.<\/p>\n<p>Under the <em>Livingston <\/em>test, courts will deny most RLUIPA challenges because the zoning laws are not coercing religious organizations to stop practicing their faith. Particularly troubling is that, in most cases, judges will not deem the burden \u201csubstantial\u201d under the <em>Livingston<\/em> test if the religious organization could propose a smaller construction project or place the project somewhere else on its property.<\/p>\n<p>But this way of reasoning flips RLUIPA on its head. The statute is meant to require the government not to interfere with religious uses of land. Instead, the <em>Livingston<\/em> test requires religious organizations to jump through many hoops to use their own property in a way that satisfies zoning boards and neighbors before courts will consider the burden substantial enough to warrant the application of religious freedom protections.<\/p>\n<p>While the religious status of the plaintiffs in this case is fit for its own examination (the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, a group that existed to serve those drawn to the Traditional Latin Mass, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pillarcatholic.com\/p\/religious-liberty-case-involves-suppressed\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">were suppressed<\/a> by the bishop of Covington, Kentucky, in 2024), it is noteworthy that the organization\u2019s status is irrelevant to the legal questions at issue here. RLUIPA in particular, and religious freedom protections in general, are not limited to religious organizations with certain ecclesiastical structures or approvals. Catholic parishes, nondenominational churches, and religious organizations unaffiliated with churches are all entitled to the land-use protections provided by RLUIPA and to religious freedom in America.<\/p>\n<p>On a related note, there is an (understandable) growing concern that groups that do not fit the traditional American understanding of a religion will take advantage of religious freedom protections. Some of this could be dealt with, as I have <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nationalaffairs.com\/publications\/detail\/the-original-meaning-of-religion\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">written previously<\/a>, if courts had the courage to declare that satanists and various atheistic groups are simply not religions under a proper interpretation of the law.<\/p>\n<p>But what about Muslims? Will strengthening religious freedom protections under statutes like RLUIPA force communities to allow extremist Islamic centers and compounds to flourish? While an extensive treatment of this question goes beyond the scope of this article, this is something the religious freedom legal movement needs to address. Perhaps by scrutinizing the beliefs and practices of some of these groups, courts can conclude that the government has a compelling interest in preventing them from proliferating. After all, the government is indeed allowed to place substantial burdens on religious exercise if the government can show that it has a compelling interest in doing so. While it is important to ensure that expanded religious freedom protections are not taken advantage of for bad purposes, such hesitation should not prevent the necessary work of ensuring religion in America is protected.<\/p>\n<p>Land-use cases, like many of the compliance and corporate governance issues I work on at <a href=\"https:\/\/www.napalegalinstitute.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Napa Legal<\/a>, do not attract attention like the hot-button First Amendment and \u201cnondiscrimination\u201d cases that make the headlines. But the legal cases that appear to be boring and technical often have major consequences for religious freedom. If religious organizations lose their ability to use their land for religious purposes without unnecessary government interference, the ability of religion to function in the public square is severely harmed. For that reason, it is important for lawyers dedicated to the flourishing of religion in American life to get involved in \u201cthe boring stuff,\u201d as we fondly call it at Napa Legal.<\/p>\n<p>I was honored to work with the Manhattan Institute on a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-1131\/405347\/20260427100512481_Missionaries%20of%20St%20John%20cert-stage.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court<\/a> recently, asking them to hear the <em>Missionaries of St. John the Baptist <\/em>case and fix the problem of a \u201csubstantial burden\u201d test that guts RLUIPA of its power. If the high court hears this case and overrules the Kentucky Supreme Court, it can create a much-needed precedent, ensuring that religious organizations can use their property for religious purposes without being subject to restrictive and inappropriate land-use laws.<\/p>\n<p>As America has become more secular in recent decades, there has been a wide variety of unacceptable intrusion by the government into the life of religious organizations. It is important that, from nondiscrimination laws to state compliance regulations to land-use ordinances, defenders of religion in America fight on every front.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Frank DeVito is senior counsel and director of content at the Napa Legal Institute. He is the author of the book <a href=\"\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B0GHF4L24Y?ref=cm_sw_r_ffobk_cso_cp_apin_dp_JPP9MYR69NK8ZJSEVTPT&#038;ref_=cm_sw_r_ffobk_cso_cp_apin_dp_JPP9MYR69NK8ZJSEVTPT&#038;social_share=cm_sw_r_ffobk_cso_cp_apin_dp_JPP9MYR69NK8ZJSEVTPT&#038;bestFormat=true\u201c\"><i>    JD Vance and the Future of the Republican Party<\/i><\/a>, published by Bombardier Press in January 2026. His work has previously been published in The American Conservative, The Federalist, Public Discourse, Daily Wire, First Things, and several other publications. He lives in eastern Pennsylvania with his wife and children. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily his employer.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Missionaries planned a Marian grotto on their own land in Kentucky, approved by zoning<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":948,"featured_media":2603056,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Copy-of-Untitled-98.png","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[67249,32274,49287,79718],"class_list":["post-2603055","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-land-use","tag-religious-freedom","tag-religious-organizations","tag-zoning-laws"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Copy-of-Untitled-98.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2603055","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/948"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2603055"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2603055\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2603059,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2603055\/revisions\/2603059"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2603056"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2603055"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2603055"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2603055"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}