The US Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, US, June 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law on Monday implored the US Supreme Court to halt an Ohio city government’s enforcement of an arcane zoning law under which it stopped an Orthodox Jewish man from hosting a prayer service in his private home, filing a supporting amicus brief in a case which the highest American judicial body agreed to review.

As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the dispute began in January 2021, when David Grand invited approximately 12 neighbors to join Sabbath prayers at his home in University Heights, a suburb of Cleveland. Orthodox Jewish prayer ordinarily requires a minyan, a quorum of 10 adult Jewish men. Because observant Jews do not drive on Shabbat, a nearby prayer group may be essential to communal religious life.

In an email invitation, Grand beckoned the community to three services “for the inauguration of the Shomayah Tefilah Beis Hakeneset.” It called the gathering a “shul,” identified a rabbi, and encouraged recipients to spread the word. The news spread through the neighborhood, reaching the ears of one neighbor who complained. Determined to stop Grand’s event, the neighbor appealed to the city’s mayor, Michael Dylan Brennan.

Brennan delegated the matter to the city’s law director, and two days later, University Heights issued Grand a cease-and-desist letter prohibiting him from using his own home for prayer. The city warned Grand that using his home for such religious assembly as a “house of worship” violated local zoning laws.

Grand challenged the city’s order, arguing it was discriminating against him as an observant Jews and violating his constitutional rights.

“This case goes to the heart of religious freedom in America. The sheer amount of antisemitic hostility directed at Mr. Grand is horrifying,” Brandies Center chairman and CEO Kenneth Marcus said in a statement. “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.”

He added, “No American should face government intimidation simply for practicing their faith in their own home. Religious liberty is the bedrock of American freedom.”

Federal courts had ruled that to hear such a case, the homeowner would first have to apply for a special-use permit and be denied. However, Grand petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case earlier this year, and over the summer the court agreed to do so.

In its amicus brief, the Brandeis Center described University Heights’ actions as a regrettable use of the state’s power against a constitutionally protected activity.

“This court should issue a ruling that ensures that biased officials cannot use the power of office to wield discretionary laws against community members who seek to practice a religion that is unpopular or foreign to their neighbors,” said the nonprofit, which has been spearheading some of the most consequential cases involving antisemitism through the legal system since its founding. “Free exercise should be safeguarded to the same degree as free-speech rights.”

As previously reported, the case — Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio — does not yet ask the Supreme Court whether University Heights violated Grand’s religious-liberty rights, or whether cities may generally require permits for home prayer gatherings. Instead, the justices will address a threshold question: When officials order someone to stop a religious activity, may he immediately challenge that action in federal court, or must he first complete the government’s permitting and appeals process?

The stakes extend well beyond one Ohio minyan. Local governments have legitimate authority to regulate traffic, noise, fire safety, and large institutions operating in residential neighborhoods. But religious observance — particularly Orthodox Jewish observance — often takes place in private homes and depends on worshippers living within walking distance of one another. The court’s ruling could determine how easily municipalities may characterize such gatherings as regulated institutions and how soon residents may ask a judge to protect them when official warnings cause them to stop worshipping.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Grand, has framed the dispute as a defense of prayer in the home.

“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,” ADF senior counsel John Bursch said after the Supreme Court accepted the case. He accused University Heights of treating religious gatherings more harshly than similarly sized book clubs or poker nights.

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.