APRIL 27, 2026 — The American Hindu Jewish Congress filed an amicus curiae brief on April 27, 2026, in support of the Petitioner, Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc.. The case, Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic (No. 25-1131), centers on whether a local zoning ordinance that blocked the construction of a religious grotto violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
The American Hindu Jewish Congress was represented by distinguished Religious Liberty litigators Edward Bedard and Miles Skedsvold of Robbins Alloy Belinfante Littlefield LLC (the Robbins Firm) in Atlanta, Georgia.
Bedard-Skedsvold Legal Team: The Bedard-Skedsvold team urged the Kentucky Supreme Court to “defend minority faiths from government overreach and ensure that unpopular religious practices are not sacrificed to majoritarian pressure”. The Amicus Brief opines that protecting smaller, non-mainstream faith communities is crucial amid rising Hindu phobia and antisemitism.
Case Background
- The Dispute: The Missionaries sought to build a devotional grotto on their property in Park Hills, Kentucky, modeled after the Marian shrine at Lourdes, France.
- Zoning Obstacles: Local neighbors challenged the project, and the Supreme Court of Kentucky ultimately ruled against the Missionaries. The court held that denying the permit did not impose a “substantial burden” on religious exercise, partly because the Missionaries could ostensibly practice their faith without the grotto or build it elsewhere.
- The Petition: The Missionaries filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari on March 18, 2026, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the “substantial burden” standard under RLUIPA.
Amicus Brief Summary
The American Hindu Jewish Congress joined several other groups—including the Manhattan Institute, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the American Center for Law and Justice—in urging the Court to hear the case. Key arguments in the support of the petitioner include:
- Protection of Minority Faiths: Amici argues that the Kentucky court’s narrow definition of “substantial burden” allows local governments to dismiss religious practices they deem non-essential or non-compulsory.
- Uniformity of Federal Law: The brief highlights a circuit split regarding what constitutes a “substantial burden,” noting that religious protections currently vary significantly by jurisdiction.
- Prevention of “Obstructionist” Zoning: It contends that RLUIPA was specifically enacted to prevent neighbors and local boards from using arbitrary zoning barriers to thwart religious land use.