The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments early next year in cases involving the enforcement of zoning ordinances against religious institutions, the Trump administration’s policy of detaining undocumented immigrants apprehended within the United States without a hearing, and the effect of a federal law intended to protect the former spouses of U.S. servicemembers. The justices added the cases to their docket during their first conference since ending summer recess, with further orders expected Monday.
The immigration detention case: a shift in policy
The court will review Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, focusing on whether the administration’s guidelines for mandatory detention of noncitizens—issued last year—apply to those apprehended within the U.S., not just at the border. The policy relies on a federal provision allowing detention if an immigration officer determines a person is “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” Until recently, such individuals were typically held under a separate rule.
Federal district judges have issued over 9,300 rulings against the administration’s mandatory detention policy since it took effect. However, appeals courts have split on its legality, a division the Supreme Court often addresses. The 2nd Circuit ruled against the administration but urged the court to take a different case, Putra v. Lopez-Campos, instead. The Supreme Court declined that request and chose Rhoney.
The case hinges on whether the administration’s interpretation of the detention provision is lawful.
A religious shrine and zoning laws
The court will also weigh in on Missionaries of St. John the Baptist v. Frederic, a dispute over whether a Catholic nonprofit can build a shrine and plaza adjacent to its church in northern Kentucky. Local zoning laws restrict such construction, but the group argues the restrictions violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
The nonprofit sought variances for the project, which includes a Virgin Mary shrine, a plaza, and a retaining wall. The zoning board approved the application, but neighbors challenged the decision, claiming the shrine would increase traffic. A state trial court sided with the church, but an appeals court reversed, and the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld that decision.
Related Post: Trump administration asks Supreme Court to lift ban
The law also bars officials from treating religious individuals or organizations less favorably than nonreligious individuals or organizations. The nonprofit argues that denying the permit would violate RLUIPA’s prohibition on rules that “substantially burden” religious practice without a compelling reason.
Military divorce settlements and federal law
The Supreme Court will examine whether state courts can enforce divorce agreements that allocate military retirement pay waived for disability benefits, a question left unresolved by its 2017 ruling in Howell v. Howell. The case, Marschner v. Marschner, involves a former spouse who argued her divorce decree required her ex-husband to compensate her for lost retirement pay after he later waived a portion of it to receive disability benefits.
Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA), retirement pay based on a servicemember’s active duty cannot be divided in divorce, but disability-based pay cannot be divided either. However, the law does not explicitly address cases where a servicemember waives active-duty retirement pay to receive disability benefits after divorce.
The dispute centers on whether state courts may enforce contractual terms that effectively redistribute military benefits despite federal limitations.
RLUIPA’s reach and zoning disputes
The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the local zoning board’s approval of the shrine did not violate RLUIPA because the rules applied equally to religious and secular projects, and alternative sites were available.
