US Supreme Court agrees to hear case of Ohio Jew forbidden from holding home minyan

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a case involving an Orthodox Jewish man from Ohio who was prohibited from conducting a home-based prayer service known as a *minyan*. This decision marks a significant step in a legal battle that has spanned over five years and touches on issues of religious freedom, zoning laws, and constitutional rights.

Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew residing in University Heights, Ohio, initiated the dispute in January 2021 by inviting a group of ten men to his home to form a *minyan*, which is required by Jewish law for certain communal prayers. Due to the prohibition against driving on the Sabbath, Grand found himself unable to attend a synagogue and thus relied on hosting these gatherings in his home. To accommodate the need for a space suitable for such religious activities, Grand expanded his home by adding a 700-square-foot recreation room specifically designed for these purposes.

The situation escalated when one of Grand's neighbors raised concerns about the use of his home for religious assembly. In response, the city of University Heights issued a cease-and-desist order, asserting that the use of residential property for religious gatherings violated local zoning regulations. Mayor Michael Dylan Brennan further fueled tensions by encouraging residents to monitor Grand’s home and report any signs of Jewish worship to the authorities. As a result, a neighbor installed surveillance equipment aimed directly at Grand’s residence, while city police began frequent visits to the area.

Grand took legal action in 2022, challenging the city's actions based on the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). However, the lower courts dismissed his case, requiring him to first apply for a special-use permit, which had not yet been granted. Despite this setback, Grand persisted and filed a petition with the Supreme Court in February 2026, seeking its intervention.

Support for Grand’s cause grew significantly following the filing of nine amicus curiae briefs, among them one submitted by the National Jewish Advocacy Center. These briefs highlighted the potential implications of treating home-based religious practices as violations of zoning laws rather than protected expressions of faith. They also drew parallels to historical patterns where Jewish religious practices were targeted under the pretext of regulatory compliance.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) joined forces with the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to represent Grand. Their involvement underscored the broader significance of the case, emphasizing that the ability of individuals to gather for religious reasons in their homes is crucial for many Americans. According to the ADF, if local governments can effectively suppress such gatherings through cease-and-desist orders without allowing for judicial review, it could pose a threat to all forms of home-based religious assemblies.

The Supreme Court's acceptance of the case, now known as *Grand v. University Heights*, signals that the issue will be addressed during the upcoming term. The potential outcomes of this case could influence how religious freedoms are interpreted and protected within the framework of zoning laws across the United States. The resolution of this matter may provide clarity on the extent to which local governments can regulate private religious activities and the protections afforded to such practices under the Constitution.