(The Lion)–After more than 25 years of ambiguity, the U.S. Supreme Court could clarify a law regarding religious organizations’ property rights, according to First Liberty Institute, which filed an appeal in a related case to the highest Court last week.

“This is one of the most important issues to come before the Court in a long time on religious language, because it touches upon every house of worship across the country and what it can and can’t do on its own property,” First Liberty Senior Counsel Ryan Gardner told The Lion in an interview.

In 2021, Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, a private, nonprofit Catholic organization, asked its local board in the state of Kentucky for approval to build a grotto – a small Catholic shrine intended for prayer – on its own property, located next to its church. The board granted the permit, saying the grotto would “‘provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community’ and would not ‘be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity,’” according to the brief.

Neighbors of the church, however, filed a lawsuit in state court, claiming the church is not located on the proper type of road, and the small structure would increase traffic, Gardner explained. The Missionaries initially got a favorable verdict, but after the plaintiffs appealed, the appellate court overruled this decision, siding with the neighbors, and the state’s Supreme Court upheld the decision.

For the state to block a religious organization from property rights, however, it must demonstrate clear, compelling interest, such as “life, death, or safety-type issues,” not increased traffic, Gardner said.

“The great irony here is that the city did the right thing,” he said. “It’s neighbors who are opposed to this, who are trying to use these local ordinances as a heckler’s veto to shut down religious activity that they don’t want happening by their property.”

The legal argument depends on the interpretation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which Congress passed in 2000. The law protects religious organizations from enduring “substantial burden” on their property rights and promises “equal terms” with nonreligious groups, according to the brief.

“What Congress found is that zoning laws are often applied in a discriminatory way to discourage a burden or even outright ban religious land use. And so, Congress passed this law with those protections in mind,” Gardner said.

First Liberty says both provisions under RLUIPA – the Substantial Burden and Equal Terms clauses – need clarification.

“The lower courts are in absolute disarray on this,” Gardner said, adding that at least 16 differing interpretations from lower courts apply the law disproportionately.

The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law and establish an authoritative, consistent standard for lower courts in the U.S.

“‘There comes a time with every law when the Supreme Court must revisit what the circuits are doing,” Judge Amul Thapar said as quoted in the brief. “‘That time has come. Every circuit to address the issue has given its own gloss to the Equal Terms provision. Whether a religious plaintiff can succeed under the Equal Terms provision thus depends entirely on where it sues.’”

This case violates both RLUIPA clauses to the harm of the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Gardner said. A “substantial burden” on religion means the group is unable to fully practice its religious freedom on its own property, he explained

“It should not be that complicated of a question to determine if someone’s religion has been burdened, and here they clearly have that,” he said. “They are completely barred from building this religious shrine, where they want to go have a quiet place for contemplation and prayer.”

Additionally, the policy is inconsistent and wrongfully discriminates against a religious organization, Gardner said, adding that a public playground on the same street as the Missionaries’ property has built a pavilion equivalent to the size of the desired grotto. Allowing public parks or other secular groups, such as golf clubs and country clubs, to freely erect structures on their property, while simultaneously prohibiting the Missionaries to do so, directly violates the Equal Protection clause of RLUIPA, he said.

If SCOTUS accepts the case, oral arguments would not commence until the next term in the fall.

The case is significant not only regarding the rights of the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist but also for protecting all faith-based entities, Gardner said.

“It has implications for people of all faiths and houses of worship across the country, and if the Supreme Court takes it – we hope it will – and they interpret it the way that we believe the plain text requires, [it] is going to significantly advance religious liberty for people of all faith.”