Jewish Group

question everything

(52,702 posts) Sun Jul 5, 2026, 02:30 PM 4 hrs ago

(JEWISH GROUP) US Supreme Court to hear University Heights home shul case

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on June 30 to hear the case of Daniel Grand, a University Heights resident who is suing the city of University Heights, former Mayor Michael Dylan Brennan and other former and current city employees after being ordered by officials to stop hosting prayer services in his home at 2343 Miramar Blvd. without a permit.

“Every American has the right to host a prayer gathering in his home, and he certainly doesn’t need a city permit to do so,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch said in a news release. “When government officials forbid that, courts must hold those individuals accountable, immediately. The city’s actions underscore a troubling trend of weaponizing zoning laws against people of faith while allowing other gatherings of the same size, like book clubs or poker nights, to meet without issue. We’re pleased the Supreme Court will hear this case.”

It is not yet known when the U.S. Supreme Court would hear the case, but the term of the Supreme Court, when it rules on cases, begins on the first Monday in October and continues until, typically, late June or early July. ADF, in partnership with San Francisco-based law firm Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, now represent Grand and filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the highest court in the country to agree to hear the case, on May 28.

The National Jewish Advocacy Center, the Manhattan Institute, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the General Council of the Assemblies of God, the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists, the Orthodox Union, the National Council of Young Israel, and the American Center for Law and Justice all filed amicus curiae briefs, a legal document written by individuals or groups not directly involved in a case, over the suit to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the case.

The case arose from a land-use and zoning dispute between Grand and certain University Heights officials. Grand, who is Orthodox, is required to pray three times daily with a minyan – 10 men – and wanted to conduct the prayers in his home, rather than walking to a synagogue three times per day, according to previous Kesher reporting. On Jan. 19, 2021, Grand sent an email to about 12 neighbors, inviting them to be part of a minyan at his home at 2343 Miramar Blvd., along with any others invitees wanted to bring, according to the ruling. According to Grand’s Sept. 9, 2022, complaint, he said he invited men to pray with him in his home in January 2021, with Brennan confronting him that same month.

More..

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/kesher/news/community_news/us-supreme-court-to-hear-university-heights-home-shul-case/article_fa46c36b-2d35-4767-8cac-e223fb5e7bab.html

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

(JEWISH GROUP) US Supreme Court to hear University Heights home shul case (Original Post) question everything 4 hrs ago OP

Have to imagine in a normal world this'll be a slam dunk in the defendant's favor. CincyDem 4 hrs ago #1

I wondered too. Here's more of the backstory. TommyT139 1 hr ago #2

Not sure. It may have something to do with Zoning issues, number of people, parking, etc. in lostincalifornia 49 min ago #3

CincyDem

(7,461 posts)

1. Have to imagine in a normal world this'll be a slam dunk in the defendant's favor.

Reply to question everything (Original post)

Sun Jul 5, 2026, 03:03 PM

4 hrs ago

What I missing. It’s not a “business”. He’s not charging people. If I invite people to my home 3 times a day to play mahjong, is that an issue too? Maybe canasta would be ok?

TommyT139

(2,552 posts)

2. I wondered too. Here's more of the backstory.

Reply to CincyDem (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 5, 2026, 05:59 PM

1 hr ago

From https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/local_news/us-supreme-court-may-rule-on-home-shul-case/article_e7867132-361e-4dca-98b9-7c23439c0e06.html

According to the lawsuit, Brennan called Grand on Jan. 21, 2021, and said he was not allowed to have any type of religious gathering in his home without first obtaining a special-use permit, under Chapter 1274 of the University Heights Zoning Code.

Grand initially applied for a special use permit to use his home as “a place of religious assembly” in 2021, but later withdrew the application.

“The city lied to me,” Grand said. “They said, ‘Oh, Mr. Grand, it’s not that we don’t want you to have a prayer gathering. That’s just fine if you do when you get a permit. And I said, ‘So I need a permit to pray? And they said, ‘Well, if you get this special-use permit, then you can pray in your house.’ But that was a lie.

“Because little did I know at the time, when I was just trying to be a good Samaritan and do my part and comply with what I thought was the standard practice in this town, I found out through the process, which was a couple of months, that the statue says that if you’re going to convert your house into a commercial application, like an actual synagogue, an actual church or a Starbucks or a Chase Bank, there are no sleeping quarters allowed. They never told me that.”

(That's my reposting limit, but the piece goes on.)

So at first glance, it seems like a poirly-written law. There's more in that article, including the town agreeing to let him have gatherings at his house and that he didn't have to go through the approval process that he had started. But then another former town official claimed that he had presented a very different impression in his original application.

More interesting to me is why all the heavy hitters and big money are piling into the case. Not that I am a lawyer, but it sounds like the intent of the regulation was probably to have a check on, for instance, religious institutions setting up homeless shelters -- which has happened in a number of cases. A church is in a neighborhood, and has a feeding program, and wants to put beds in for overnight use by program guests, that sort of thing. Yet this situation is a kind of reversal -- a homeowner seeking to overturn any municipal control over this general category of mixed use.

It seems like he had an opportunity to walk away, after being told that his use of home as gathering for a minyan was fine. So it will also be interesting to see how this plays out over time, with results that will have far more applicability in ways that aren't part of the current (past, really) situation.

As we have seen with other Supreme Court decisions framed as religious freedom cases, when the big conservative players come in, they are often trying to chip away at separation of church and state, and especially to reduce the "state"/secular power's ability to place any check on what some faith communities consider to be religious practice.

I say "some" faith communities here, because the many progressive faiths and denominations end up being excluded, for example in areas like same-sex marriage, trans inclusion in all aspects of daily life (including health care and sports), and welcoming immigrants.

So this will be one to watch -- thanks for posting the article.

lostincalifornia

(5,680 posts)

3. Not sure. It may have something to do with Zoning issues, number of people, parking, etc. in

Reply to CincyDem (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 5, 2026, 06:39 PM

49 min ago

a neighborhood. They base that on things like building safety regulation, occupancy limits, etc.

How many people are we talking about for this gathering and how much congestion does it add to the neighborhood, etc.

Reply to this discussion