Supreme Court intervenes in dispute over church’s plan to build shrine on residential land
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today.
Already a member?
Log in
The Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to consider whether a religious institution possesses the right to construct a shrine dedicated to the Virgin Mary on residential property neighboring its Kentucky church.
The church’s owner, a nonprofit organization established by Roman Catholic priests, contends that the Kentucky Supreme Court misread a federal statute when ruling against its plan to build the shrine on a residential parcel acquired specifically for the proposed development project.
The nation’s highest court will listen to oral arguments in the coming months in its latest religious rights legal dispute.
The petitioners, Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, maintain that they are entitled to build the shrine behind their church as part of their “religious mission.” They argue that a federal statute can, under specific conditions, prohibit local governments from enforcing land use regulations that place a “substantial burden” on their religious expression.
Last December, the state’s highest court determined that a zoning board in Park Hills, Kentucky, a suburb of Cincinnati, lacked appropriate legal authority to issue a variance permitting the church owner to build on the residential tract.
The religious group contends that the Kentucky Supreme Court decision directly conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and appellate rulings.
“The conflict among lower courts is deeply entrenched and widely acknowledged,” the group’s lawyers wrote.
A nearby family, worried that the proposal would worsen neighborhood traffic, successfully contested the zoning board’s ruling in state court. The family likewise urged the Supreme Court to reject the petition, stating there is no justification for federal intervention in a local zoning dispute.
Opponents assert the church group knew that zoning laws prohibited building the shrine on adjacent residential land when acquiring the property. They also argue that the group has not shown why it cannot build the shrine on church land.
