SCOTUS to address right to conduct religious meetings without zoning permit

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a novel case from Ohio—Grand v. City of University Heights—with significant implications for the First Amendment right to the Free Exercise of Religion.

Mindful of the timely issues Grand presents about where people can gather to pray, this column first reviews its facts and judicial history before offering analysis and commentary on its potential impact on religious freedom.

Grand v. City of University Heights

A four-year legal odyssey emerged in University Heights, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, when Daniel Grand, a devout member of the Orthodox branch of Judaism, sought to invite about a dozen people to his home as part of a minyan. A minyan is a gathering of at least ten men on the Sabbath and specified high holidays to pray at least three times. Grand hoped to meet in his home because his faith forbids him from driving on the Sabbath and high holy days.

Within hours after a neighbor complained about Grand’s planned minyan, city officials in University Heights sent him a cease-and-desist notice on January 21, 2021. The letter demanded that Grand first obtain a special-use permit because officials thought he “intend[ed] to use” [his house as] “a place of religious assembly” even though it was zoned as a single-family dwelling. After Grand received the letter, a city official reacted with skepticism to his assertion that he wanted to host small, informal gatherings, claiming he had seen at least 120 people at similar events. Grand thus cancelled the next scheduled minyan.

On January 22, 2021, Grand applied to the University Heights’ Planning Commission for a Special Use Permit seeking a zoning variance. At a public hearing on March 4, 2021, because some of Grand’s neighbors spoke out against his application, the Commission tabled it to consider whether he would operate a house of worship.

Shortly thereafter, Grand withdrew his application because he did not want to operate a house of worship or “be part of an ‘inevitably hostile public spectacle.’” Even so, the Commission met as the city’s mayor emphasized that Grand could not operate a house of worship; he also asked neighbors to report any violations, essentially requesting that they spy on his behavior. However, the Commission took no further action.

Further, during early 2021, a police lieutenant directed police officers to drive past the Grand home; they did so, without observing any violations. Also, after a prosecutor sought to investigate housing code violations inside the Grand residence, a housing inspector, with his wife’s approval, visited the home without finding any wrongdoing.

About eighteen months after withdrawing his zoning variance application, Grand unsuccessfully filed suit in a federal trial court against the city and various officials. He alleged most notably that they violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Under RLIIPA, “[n]o government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden . . . (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

Grand also alleged violations of his rights under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), which bans others, acting with “force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, [who] intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.”

Finally, Grand raised other claims because of the housing inspector being sent to search his home without a warrant, in violation of Constitutional Amendments to the Constitution as well as various Ohio laws.

A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit in Grand summarily affirmed a federal trial court order dismissing most of the claims with prejudice, making it difficult to refile them without initiating litigation from the start, and refusing to assert jurisdiction over the last allegation involving public records. The panel agreed that the claims were either not ripe, meaning no violations had yet occurred, or failed on the merits by not raising substantive issues.

Analysis and commentary

Joined by many proponents of religious freedom, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Grand is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, “the world’s largest legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom [and] free speech.” Among other topics. Grand raises significant questions not just about religious freedom but also a plaintiff’s right to association and assembly.

Municipalities certainly have the authority to adopt reasonable zoning laws to help maintain the quality of neighborhoods. But why did the mayor of University Heights go so far as to intrude on Grand’s private life by spying on him, including “ask[ing] community members to report any violations to the City”? Such an attack on religious freedom and personal privacy is reminiscent of scenes from the Cold War that continue in some nations as leaders in totalitarian states sought to restrict the religious freedom rights of their citizens.

It is also troubling to learn of one resident’s complaint to city officials about Grand’s behavior, apparently without disclosing her beliefs, while another “neighbor wrote in opposition that she didn’t want the area ‘labeled as Jewish.’” Consequently, one must wonder whether those who disagreed with Grand’s efforts, arguably harassing him and his family, were motivated by anti-Semitism.

Religious gatherings at home are not uncommon and are essential for religious freedom. To this end, “[m]ost evangelical Protestant churches in the U.S. use a form of small group as part of weekly activities.” Moreover, an analysis of 1,021 adult Bible study of group ministry leaders in May to June 2024, showed that 31% conducted Bible Study meetings by various names on Sunday in their homes, while 13% did so in off-campus locations rather than in their churches.

Thus, the importance of viewing the controversy in Grand in the larger context of religious freedom, regardless of one’s beliefs.

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, it is potentially problematic if municipal officials, such as those in University Heights (and especially its mayor), can call on others, including neighbors and the police, to snoop on residents as they seek to exercise their rights to religious freedom, along with association in terms of who they invite into their homes. A possible difficulty in such circumstances is that individuals opposed to the religious beliefs of others can seek to limit their constitutionally protected freedoms by attempting to hide behind zoning restrictions and requirements.

When Grand sought to conduct a minyan at his home, officials ignored his pleas that “‘I do not wish to operate a house of worship … as it is ‘defined under the zoning ordinance.’” As Grand’s case proceeds, the issue on appeal is “ripeness,” or whether his suit can continue insofar as he had not obtained a final order adjudicating his rights before seeking further review from the Supreme Court. In response, Grand maintains that having to complete a lengthy review process involving city officials can “chill” or restrict his rights to freedom of religion, in particular, until completing such procedures.

The Supreme Court, in recent years, has been more favorably disposed to protecting religious freedom, often referred to as the Nation’s “first freedom” because it is so crucial in our American society, than perhaps ever before. A case from earlier this year, First Choice v. Davenport, about which I wrote for Catholic World Report, is a good example.

In First Choice, the Justices allowed a pro-life center’s challenge to a subpoena from New Jersey officials who sought information about their donors. The Supreme Court agreed with First Choice’s position that having to disclose personal information about those who gave it money violated the organization’s First Amendment rights to freedom of association and donor privacy by possibly having “chilling” effects on individuals who might have stopped contributing due to fears of reprisals by state officials over their pro-life beliefs in a decidedly pro-abortion state.

The Supreme Court has yet to announce a date for oral arguments in Grand. Even so, it will hear the case either this fall or early in the spring, rendering a judgment by the end of its term next June. Stay tuned!