An Ohio city was wrong in using zoning laws to bar a resident from hosting a Jewish prayer gathering in his home in 2021, says Amanda Tyler, executive director of Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
“Being free to exercise your religion must include the ability to worship, gather and pray in your own home,” Tyler said. “Baptists were religious dissenters at the founding era, and they fought for everyone’s right to exercise their religion freely without having to seek the government’s permission.”
Amanda Tyler
But that is exactly what University Heights required of Daniel Grand when he set out to invite 10 fellow Orthodox Jews to his home for Sabbath prayers. Alerted by complaints from neighbors, the Cleveland-area city issued Grand a cease-and-desist order and required him to apply for a permit to operate a “house of worship” in a residential area. Officials also ordered police to monitor Grand’s residence and encouraged neighbors to report any prayer gatherings at the residence.
Grand withdrew his application for the permit after realizing it would disqualify his home as a residence. He then sued, claiming the city’s actions violated his religious freedom rights and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court in June agreed to hear the case after a federal appeals court ruled Grand’s lawsuit was premature because the University Heights zoning board had yet to reach a decision in the matter.
The case has generated wide-ranging support from civil rights and religious groups. Among the nearly 40 friend-of-the-court briefs filed with the Supreme Court as of Sept. 16 are submissions from BJC, the National Jewish Advocacy Center, the Religious Freedom Institute, the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops, the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints and right-wing groups such as Advancing American Freedom and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Home meetings for Bible studies, prayer and social events are common in many U.S. faith traditions, especially among Christians and Jews.
In a joint brief with Agudath Israel and Ratio Christi, BJC emphasized the significance of in-home prayer and worship in Christian and Jewish traditions and within the scope of the First Amendment.
“The city’s order to cease and desist a small prayer gathering in a private home is not a mere land-use dispute; it is a direct intrusion on religious exercise.”
“An Orthodox Jew in Ohio is required by his faith to pray in a group of 10 men (a minyan) and, because adherents of his faith do not drive on the Sabbath, he wished to host this small group at his home. This practice is ancient, commonplace and strikingly nondisruptive. After all, the inability to drive or use electricity on the Sabbath obviates any concerns about traffic or loud noise,” the brief explains.
The groups also disagreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that Grand’s lawsuit lacked “ripeness” because he filed the claim before the city zoning board acted.
“Ripeness requirements must allow plaintiffs to seek prompt enforcement of their federal rights in federal court. Without that ability, their precious rights will be violated and chilled by state and local officials who are all too often insensitive — if not outright hostile — to people of faith,” the brief says.
“Reversal is especially warranted here because of the crucial constitutional interests at issue. The city’s order to cease and desist a small prayer gathering in a private home is not a mere land-use dispute; it is a direct intrusion on religious exercise at the place where the First Amendment’s protection should be at its apex.”
Some of the briefs submitted in support of University Heights came at the issue from a standpoint of public safety.
“Public safety is always a concern. More people — be they driving or walking — mean more risk for everyone,” the American Planning Association argued. “Although small religious gatherings in a residence may have little to no effect on surrounding properties, depending on the particular use — and size of the gathering — it may have greater impact. For example, if such a use entails more people driving or walking, there may be greater public safety risk.”
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Grand v. City of University Heights on Dec. 9 with a decision expected in 2027.
Grand is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom and Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe.