In a case that appears designed to catch the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority, a federal judge heard arguments on Monday about whether a Castle Rock church’s religious belief that it should house the homeless is enough to let the congregation bypass the town’s zoning restrictions and continue operating temporary shelters in its parking lot.

On the surface, The Rock evangelical church is seeking a short-term court order that would allow it to continue to use one recreational vehicle and one camping trailer to temporarily shelter homeless individuals and families, notwithstanding the town’s position that the church’s zoning does not permit a residential use.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico voiced his concern that granting a preliminary injunction to the church would mean other religious institutions could disregard zoning restrictions, too. More concretely, exempting two temporary shelters from the zoning code on religious grounds could mean The Rock’s more expansive plans to construct housing on its 54-acre property may also be entitled to a religious exemption.

“There’s a lot more going on. There’s a lot more that your client wants to do with this property,” Domenico told the church’s lawyer. “If I grant this injunction … we’re right back here and I’m telling the town of Castle Rock they have to permit this much bigger project. We’re not just really talking about a couple of families. We’re talking about really changing the nature of what goes on on that property.”

And, he added, “the town can’t do anything about it.”

In the underlying case, The Rock has used its RV and trailer in recent years to temporarily house people who are homeless. The town, responding to complaints from neighbors, told the church Castle Rock’s zoning did not permit RV living.

The Rock then filed suit against Castle Rock.

Among other things, it alleged a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law prohibiting any land use regulation that imposes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise. For the government to prevail, it needs to establish a compelling interest and demonstrate the regulation is the least-restrictive method of fulfilling that interest.

Multiple aspects of the lawsuit suggested the eventual audience for its arguments was the Supreme Court. The church’s attorneys included an experienced Supreme Court litigator and the First Liberty Institute, which has brought multiple religious exercise cases to the Supreme Court, including the appeal of a high school coach who wanted to lead prayers publicly after football games.

The church’s lawyers also noted they explicitly sought to overrule a 34-year-old Supreme Court precedent about religious freedom. Although Domenico is bound to follow it, multiple conservative justices have signaled their interest in partially getting rid of Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 ruling that largely permits courts to uphold generally applicable, religiously neutral laws that happen to impose burdens on religion.

At least three current justices have endorsed the idea that governments should always have to demonstrate a neutral regulation affecting religious exercise is narrowly tailored and furthers a compelling interest — a position The Rock’s lawyers have now teed up should the case get that far.

At the preliminary injunction hearing, Domenico’s main concern with the church’s position was avoiding a cascade of religious institutions seeking further exemptions to the town’s zoning code on the grounds that their religious beliefs were burdened for no compelling reason. At the extreme, he observed, it could mean land use codes may no longer apply to faith houses.

“Why couldn’t you or the next church say, ‘We want 10 RVs’ or ‘We want to build a small apartment building on our property?’ Wouldn’t the principles you’re asking me to apply here require me to allow that, too?” said Domenico, a Donald Trump appointee.

Misha Tseytlin, the church’s lawyer, countered that RLUIPA was “strong medicine” that Congress enacted to provide special protection for faith houses in land use decisions.

“To the extent that some citizens would complain about that, I would tell them that, with all respect, their complaint needs to be to their congressman or their senator or whoever is gonna be president,” Tseytlin said.

The town countered that, if the church wanted to change its zoning to permit residential living, it could simply go through the normal legislative process, rather than immediately resort to a federal lawsuit. Further, the 2003 land annexation agreement between The Rock and the town explicitly contained the church’s acknowledgement that the land use regulations do not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise.

Castle Rock also disputed that the onsite homeless shelters were the only means by which the church could exercise its religious beliefs, considering the RV and trailer did not operate for much of the church’s existence.

“We dispute the sincerity of that. Because if it was sincere, where was that in 2003 when they agreed to the non-residential zoning of their property and they agreed it didn’t interfere with their mission?” argued attorney Geoffrey C. Klingsporn for the town.

Domenico acknowledged the church’s other options for helping families obtain shelter “all seem like great ideas to me. But if they (the church) say, ‘Nope, we feel religiously motivated to use this wonderful property we have for this particular purpose,'” Domenico wondered, “who am I to tell them, ‘No, you should try something else?'”

He added: “Are we gonna have a trial on what the Bible says about people sleeping in RVs on church property? I’m not excited about that prospect.”

The case is Church of The Rock, Inc. v. Town of Castle Rock.