When city rules chill home worship, courts should step in

• The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to hear a case brought by an Orthodox Jewish man who was harassed by the city when he sought to hold a religious gathering in his home.
• Disputes over property use are common scenarios for religious freedom issues to arise.
• The Court could provide much-needed direction by deciding this dispute and providing protection to religious exercise.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s current term is winding down, with its last decisions likely to be handed down in early July. The Court will also be deciding which cases it will hear in its next term, beginning in the fall, including an important religious freedom case. 

This case, Grand v. City of University Heights, involves Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew, who invited a dozen friends to a religious gathering in his home. These home religious gatherings are common in some religious traditions. A neighbor objected and asked the city to prevent the meetings. City officials told Grand he needed a permit due to zoning regulations. In addition, the city surveilled and harassed Grand while he challenged the restriction. 

It is important to understand the significance of the meeting for Grand’s faith and the potential effect on the neighbors. As his attorneys explain:

As an Orthodox Jewish man, he is required to pray with a minyan (a prayer quorum of at least ten adult males) three times every weekday, and four times on the Sabbath and holidays, when driving is prohibited. That means he must either live within walking distance of a synagogue or have a place nearby to gather with at least ten Jewish men for prayer.

So when Daniel wanted to host a minyan in his home on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays, he was simply trying to fulfill a core religious duty. The gathering would involve no changes to his home, no signage, no noise, and no disruption to the neighborhood. Indeed, because no one would be driving, there wouldn’t even be so much as a parked car. It was, in every sense, a quiet gathering of friends.

It turns out that religious freedom disputes over the use of property are common. So much so that in 2000, Congress passed a law: the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The law “protect[s] individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws.” For example, a city that denies approval to build a mosque or synagogue, although it allows churches to be built in the area. Or, an existing church that is denied the opportunity to provide services to the homeless in the community. 

RLUIPA is not the only law that protects people of faith and religious organizations in disputes over property use. 

The Ohio case does not turn on this law but on more basic constitutional principles. Grand argues that the city’s actions create a “chill” on his ability to exercise the fundamental right to exercise his faith. The lower court determined he could not bring a lawsuit until the city had actually prosecuted him. Grand, by contrast, argues the chill came because of the threats from the city. The specific legal question is whether he can bring his case now based on the threat or whether he will need to wait until the city makes a final determination against him. 

The Court should take this case to provide direction to lower courts and other government officials so people of faith can meet for religious study and worship without the intrusion of civic officials. 

Parker Horn provided invaluable research assistance for this post.