First Amendment Rights Challenged by Zoning Laws

The Supreme Court was captured in a photograph on April 30, 2026, in Washington. The image resonates with families who partake in traditions like saying grace before meals. For many, such customs do not require government approval.

Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew in University Heights, Ohio, found himself in an unexpected situation. Grand, adhering to his faith’s requirement, invited a minyan to pray at his home. This requires at least ten Jewish men and is crucial, especially on Sabbath and Jewish holy days when travel is restricted.

However, a city directive demanded Grand to cease using his home as a ‘place of religious assembly’ unless he obtained a special-use permit. Despite only wanting to pray, Grand applied for the permit as advised. Yet, he faced protests, with opponents expressing their desire for the neighborhood’s religious homogeneity.

The public zoning-commission hearing was hostile. Grand encountered heckling and obstruction, prompting him to abandon his application. The city’s actions did not stop there. Encouraging surveillance from neighbors and using law enforcement to monitor him was only the beginning. The city cited him for non-existent housing code violations, withholding his certificate of occupancy and tax abatements, resulting in substantial financial losses. Even basic amenities like trash collection were intermittently denied.

Obtaining a permit also came with the stipulation that his home be converted into a synagogue, conflicting with zoning laws prohibiting residence in worship venues. This created a catch-22 scenario, preventing Grand from living in and using his home for prayer.

“Seeing a First Amendment violation, Grand sought relief from the federal courts, which were unresponsive,”

stated representatives from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Alliance Defending Freedom.

This lawsuit highlights a legal divide across the United States. Some federal appeals courts grant immediate access to court over constitutional matters, while others demand exhaustive permit procedures. Grand, if situated in cities like Boston or Atlanta, might have faced a different judicial trajectory.

All five circuit court cases addressing similar issues reflect a prevalent trend of perceived religious persecution. Notably, informal gatherings such as poker or book clubs often escape similar scrutiny.

The situation epitomizes local governments using zoning laws to manage religious expressions, a point seen by many as unconstitutional. With the Supreme Court potentially reviewing this matter, there’s hope for a resolution protecting religious freedoms. As Grand awaits justice, the broader implications for communal religious practices remain pressing.

John Bursch serves as senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy at Alliance Defending Freedom.