The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Dec. 9, 2026, in Grand v. City of University Heights, a religious liberty case from University Heights, Ohio. Daniel Grand, a practicing Orthodox Jew, does not drive on the Sabbath and says his faith requires him to pray with ten men, known as a minyan. He hosted others in his private home for prayer and worship.
University Heights told Grand to stop. The city issued a cease-and-desist order, deployed police to surveil his home, and asked neighbors to report religious activity they saw there. The city said Grand needed a special-use permit to operate as a “house of worship” under local zoning ordinances. Grand initially applied for the permit but withdrew because that permit, intended for houses of worship, would have disqualified his home for residential use.
Grand sued under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The courts dismissed his case. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the case was not ripe because the local zoning board had not made a final decision. Grand argues he could not freely exercise his religion in his home while waiting for that process to end.
A friend-of-the-court brief led by the Harvard Law School Religious Freedom Clinic, and joined by Agudath Israel of America and Ratio Christi, argues that at-home worship and prayer are central to Jewish and Christian practice. The brief says, “Ripeness requirements must allow plaintiffs to seek prompt enforcement of their federal rights in federal court.”
The case asks whether government can force a person through a discretionary permit process before a court may hear a religious liberty claim. The answer will matter far beyond one home in University Heights. Families, churches, and people of faith need clear protection when local officials treat ordinary worship in the home as an activity that requires government permission.
