Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew, lives in University Heights, Ohio. His faith requires communal prayer with a minyan of at least ten men on the Sabbath. He invited a small group of neighbors to gather for these services in his home.
A neighbor complained. City officials issued a cease-and-desist letter. The letter stated that Grand’s home could not serve as a place of religious assembly in a residential zoning district without a special-use permit. It threatened code enforcement if he continued.
Grand canceled the next service and submitted a permit application. Neighbors filed opposition letters that expressed open hostility to Jewish practice. One writer stated he did not want the neighborhood “labeled as Jewish.” The city held a public hearing marked by similar opposition.
After Grand withdrew the application, Mayor Michael Dylan Brennan declared at the Planning Commission meeting that the cease-and-desist order remained in full force. He told those present: “If you observe such activities, and I hope you do not, but if you do, you may report them to the city, and the city will enforce its laws…” A police lieutenant directed patrol units to conduct frequent drive-bys of the home. The city prosecutor initiated a housing code investigation. An inspector searched the residence with consent from Grand’s wife and found no violations.
Grand sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, and the First Amendment. RLUIPA prohibits governments from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise through land-use rules unless the rules serve a compelling interest by the least restrictive means. It also requires equal treatment of religious assemblies.
The district court dismissed the suit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in November 2025. It held the claims unripe because Grand had not completed the permit process and received a final denial.
Grand petitioned the Supreme Court. His counsel filed a reply brief urging review to resolve a circuit split on when RLUIPA claims ripen. The brief argues that the cease-and-desist order itself caused concrete injury by forcing Grand to halt a core religious practice.
The city treats a small home gathering as equivalent to an institutional synagogue that requires special permitting. Small, informal prayer groups have operated in Jewish and Christian homes for centuries without such licensing.
If the Sixth Circuit approach stands, any city can burden home-based religious exercise by imposing permit requirements and exposing applicants to discretionary hearings and neighbor opposition. Christian house churches, Bible studies, and family prayer gatherings would face the same exposure.
Early believers gathered in homes to pray, teach, and break bread. When authorities later demanded registration or closure of such meetings, Christians appealed to divine law over human commands that contradicted it. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29, KJV)
The American founders protected religious exercise in private homes and voluntary societies from government oversight or favoritism.
As of June 3, 2026, the petition for a writ of certiorari in Grand v. City of University Heights remains pending. The Court has neither granted review nor issued any decision on the merits.
The Supreme Court should grant review. It should clarify that RLUIPA protects religious exercise from the first moment government coerces a believer to stop or seek permission for it.
The American founders protected religious exercise in private homes and voluntary societies from government permission slips or favoritism. A ruling in Grand’s favor would reaffirm that principle against modern zoning regimes that treat a handful of people praying in a living room as an institutional “place of assembly” requiring special approval.
Even without a Supreme Court decision yet, the case already illustrates how local land-use rules can be weaponized against minority religious practice and how the ripeness doctrine can function as a barrier to judicial review of those burdens.
More:
Alliance Defending Freedom case page
District Court ruling (City of University Heights site)
No comments yet
Leave a Reply