A legal battle that began when an Orthodox Jewish resident sought to host a small Shabbos minyan in his home has reached the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court, with attorneys arguing that local officials unlawfully targeted religious practice and treated a private minyan as though it were a commercial shul.
The dispute dates back five years, when Daniel Grand invited a group of friends to daven together in his home. According to Grand, the city of University Heights, Ohio informed him that he would need the same type of permit required for a shul or church in order to host the gathering. He later alleged that city officials withheld tax benefits, had police monitor his neighborhood, and conducted a public hearing that his attorneys say reflected hostility toward Orthodox Jewish religious observance.
On Thursday, lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom and the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe submitted a petition urging the Supreme Court to hear Grand’s challenge against the city and review the lower courts’ rulings.
The appeal comes after a federal district court dismissed Grand’s lawsuit in 2024, a decision later upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Grand’s legal team argues that courts in different parts of the country have reached conflicting conclusions on similar issues and that the Supreme Court should resolve those differences.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has been involved in several major Supreme Court cases, is representing Grand in the matter. The group has played a prominent role in a number of religious-liberty cases over the years.
Grand, an Orthodox Jew, sought to host a minyan in his home, a practice common in many frum communities.
Court filings indicate that city officials learned of Grand’s invitation to friends for a planned January 2021 minyan before it took place. The city subsequently sent him a cease-and-desist order directing him to stop using his residence as a “place of religious assembly” unless he first obtained a special-use permit. Under local zoning regulations, such permits are generally required for houses of worship operating within residential neighborhoods.
Grand has maintained throughout the case that he was never attempting to establish a shul. Rather, he says he simply wished to host a small Shabbos minyan in his home, something observant Jews commonly do.
As a result of the city’s position, Grand canceled the gathering and submitted a permit application. Court records indicate that 195 local residents signed a petition opposing the request. The matter was later discussed during a Planning Commission meeting conducted over Zoom in March 2021.
According to reports at the time, the virtual hearing lasted more than three hours and attracted as many as 126 participants. During the meeting, Grand explained that the minyan would remain small, would not involve cars, would not expand beyond its original scope, and would be attended only by men who could walk there. He also assured neighbors that the gathering would not create safety or quality-of-life concerns.
One resident, Christopher Cooney, questioned whether the minyan was truly private and noted that Grand had listed his address on a website used by Jewish travelers seeking nearby minyanim. Grand’s attorneys also told the Supreme Court that some residents submitted written objections, including one stating, “I am not Jewish, and I do not want our neighborhood labeled as Jewish.”
The Planning Commission ultimately voted 3-2 to postpone a decision and requested additional information before holding another hearing. Before that could occur, however, Grand withdrew his application after concluding that obtaining the permit would effectively require his residence to be reclassified as a house of worship, preventing his family from continuing to live there.
“Paradoxically, the only way for Grand to pray with friends at his home was to convert his home to a commercial space and move his family,” the brief notes.
After Grand withdrew the application, his attorneys claim the city intensified its actions against him. According to the lawsuit, the mayor announced that the cease-and-desist order would remain in effect and encouraged neighbors to report any “activities consistent with those in a house of assembly.” Grand further alleges that police regularly patrolled the area to monitor compliance.
His legal team also contends that city officials repeatedly failed to collect his garbage and improperly cited his property for housing violations, actions they claim were used as justification for withholding occupancy approvals and tax abatements.
Although University Heights initially declined to respond to the Supreme Court petition, the Court later directed the city to file a response.
In its submission, the city argued that Grand was never prohibited from davening in his home and noted that no enforcement action was ever taken against him. The city also maintains that housing inspections found no violations and points to Grand’s own statement when withdrawing the application — “I do not wish to operate a house of worship as is defined under the zoning ordinance, in the privacy of my home” — as evidence that the zoning regulations may never have applied to his situation at all. According to the city, Grand abandoned the process before officials ever determined whether a permit was actually necessary.
“Every American has the right to host a prayer gathering in his home, and he certainly doesn’t need a city permit to do so,” said John Bursch, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom. “The city’s actions underscore a troubling trend of weaponizing zoning laws against people of faith while allowing other gatherings of the same size, like book clubs or poker nights, to meet without issue.”
Grand’s attorneys argue that the case reflects a broader nationwide issue. They note that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, enacted unanimously by Congress in 2000, was passed after lawmakers found what they described as widespread discrimination against religious institutions in zoning and land-use decisions. The Supreme Court filing cites similar disputes involving Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Buddhist groups in communities across the country.
{
Matzav.com}
