Supreme Court Case Highlights Religious Freedom Issues

The Supreme Court building, photographed on April 30, 2026, in Washington, sets the scene for a significant debate about religious freedom. Many families choose to pray before meals, yet asking for governmental approval to do so isn’t typical. Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew, experienced this conundrum firsthand in University Heights, Ohio.

A few years ago, Grand invited approximately 12 friends to his home for prayer. This gathering was significant as his faith dictates praying three times a day with a “minyan” of at least 10 Jewish men. On the Sabbath and holy days, Jews refrain from driving, necessitating prayer gatherings close to home.

Unexpectedly, Grand received a letter from the city demanding that he “immediately cease and desist any and all” religious activity in his home. To continue praying with his friends, Grand would need a special-use permit, required for religious assemblies in residential areas. Although not planning to establish a temple, Grand applied for the permit to cooperate with the city.

Opposition arose quickly. Some locals voiced concerns in writing, with sentiments such as “I do not want our neighborhood labeled as Jewish.” During a public zoning hearing, Grand faced heckling from attendees and opposition from commission members. He was asked to attend a second hearing but chose to withdraw his application quietly.

The situation deteriorated further. The city encouraged neighbors to monitor Grand’s home for visitors, and squad cars patrolled the area frequently. City officials started citing him for non-existent housing code violations and withheld his certificate of occupancy and tax abatements. This resulted in financial losses for Grand. Additionally, his garbage collection was intermittently halted.

Grand learned that an approved permit would require his home to become an official synagogue. Zoning laws prevented residency in a commercial house of worship. This created a paradox: Grand could not pray at home if he lived there, yet could not reside if he prayed there.

Seeing this as a First Amendment violation, Grand sought judicial relief. However, federal courts required him to complete the city’s permit process before seeking assistance. This situation compares to telling a homeowner to wait until their house burns down before calling firefighters.

The lawsuit, involving lawyers from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Alliance Defending Freedom, exposes a major legal inconsistency. The 1st and 11th Circuits allow immediate federal court access for constitutional rights violations. In contrast, the 3rd, 9th, and 6th Circuits, including Grand’s case, require completion of permitting processes first.

If Grand resided in cities like Boston or Atlanta, federal courts would have addressed his rights already. In places like Philadelphia, Seattle, or Cleveland, access remains blocked. The attention given to similar cases across five circuit courts reflects the increasing prevalence of such religious practice disputes.

No special permit would be needed if Grand invited friends for casual activities like poker or book clubs. However, religious gatherings face governmental scrutiny, demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against faith. Such practices violate constitutional protections, necessitating Supreme Court intervention.

The widespread nature of this issue indicates an urgent need for the Supreme Court to review it. With potential support, the justices may ultimately decide if individuals like Grand can freely practice their faith without bureaucratic hindrance.

John Bursch is senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy at Alliance Defending Freedom. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.