WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release) – The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Grand v. City of University Heights, a religious freedom case involving an Orthodox Jewish man who was prevented by the Ohio city from gathering a small group of fellow Jews to pray in his own home.
After a neighbor complained to Mayor Michael Dylan Brennan, the mayor intervened, and the City threatened Petitioner Daniel Grand with jail time, enlisted police to monitor his home, and encouraged neighbors to watch the family for “unauthorized” prayer activity. Neighbors also allegedly told Grand “we don’t want your kind here” and expressed fear that the neighborhood would be “labeled as Jewish.” The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief in support of Grand, urging the Court to protect religious minorities from discriminatory use of zoning laws.
Grand, who lives with his family a distance from the nearest Orthodox synagogue, sought to gather a minyan, a group of ten Jewish adults required for key prayers, at his home on Shabbat and holy days when Jewish law prohibits driving. Before Grand held even a single prayer gathering, a neighbor complained to the city’s mayor and asked him to “put a stop to this.”
That same day, according to the amicus curiae brief, the City issued a cease-and-desist order threatening Grand with jail time if he gathered with fellow Jews to pray without first obtaining a special use permit to operate the home as a formal house of worship.
“This case goes to the heart of religious freedom in America. The sheer amount of anti-Semitic hostility directed at Mr. Grand is horrifying,” said Kenneth L. Marcus, chairman and CEO of the Brandeis Center and the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education who ran the Office for Civil Rights during two administrations.
“Neighbors allegedly said ‘we don’t want your kind here’ and feared the neighborhood would be ‘labeled as Jewish,’ while city officials threatened Mr. Grand and surveilled his home for signs of Jewish prayer. No American should face government intimidation simply for practicing their faith in their own home. Religious liberty is the bedrock of American freedom.”
The mayor escalated the City’s response, threatening Grand on the phone, enlisting police to monitor the home for signs that Jewish neighbors were gathering to pray, and encouraging neighbors to watch Grand and the family for “unauthorized” prayer activity. The mayor even condoned a neighbor’s use of security cameras to see into Grand’s home.
Grand told the City he never sought to convert the home into a synagogue or formal house of worship. He simply wanted to pray on his own property with a small group of fellow Jews. Yet the City demanded that Grand apply for a special permit to operate the home as a house of worship, even though obtaining that permit would have meant Grand and his young family could no longer live in their home.
After the City’s threats, Grand abandoned the plan to hold the minyan, which substantially burdened his constitutional right to freely practice his religion. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Grand’s plea on ripeness grounds after Grand withdrew the permit application, affirming the district court’s dismissal of the case without reaching the merits of Grand’s religious freedom claims, and the case is now before the Supreme Court.
The Brandeis Center observes that the problem extends beyond this case. The amicus brief points to similar disputes involving Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventist, and other minority religious communities whose ability to worship has been threatened by discretionary zoning and permitting regimes.
Congress recognized this problem when it enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) more than 25 years ago, warning that government officials can use seemingly neutral justifications such as public safety to mask efforts to prohibit constitutionally protected religious activity.
The Brandeis Center joins Petitioner in urging the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s decision.
Read the Brandeis Center’s amicus brief HERE.
*
Preceding provided by the Brandeis Center.