Agudath Israel of America has filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, asking the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case of Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio. This case involves the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) with significant ramifications for religious Americans across the country.

The case centers on Daniel Grand, a man who sought to organize an at-home minyan (a Jewish prayer gathering requiring a quorum of ten men) on Shabbos. Because observant Jews cannot drive or use electronics on Shabbos, concerns about traffic and noise violations were entirely negated. Nonetheless, the City of University Heights issued Grand a cease-and-desist order, classifying the gathering as “a home operating as a house of worship” and requiring a special use permit. The City further deployed police surveillance of the home and encouraged neighbors to report the gathering to authorities. Facing prosecution, Mr. Grand sued the City in Federal Court.

Rather than protecting religious liberty, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the City, holding that the religious liberty claims were not yet ripe because the local zoning board had not yet determined whether the ordinance applied to Mr. Grand’s gatherings.

The amicus brief asks the Supreme Court to take up the case in light of the crucial constitutional First Amendment issues at stake, as well as potential violations of RLUIPA. The brief argues that the government’s actions represent a direct assault on religious exercise.

“The City’s order to cease and desist a small prayer gathering in a private home is not a mere land‑use dispute; it is a direct intrusion on religious exercise at the place where the First Amendment’s protection should be at its apex.”

The brief continues:

“For centuries, [various religious traditions] have centered core forms of worship in the home, and American law has consistently refused to treat such ordinary religious practice as an activity that exists only at the sufferance of local officials. By allowing a discretionary permitting regime to burden that practice—and then delaying judicial review until the religious plaintiff submits to it—the decision below entrenches the very system of permission‑based religion that the First Amendment was designed to eliminate.”

“This case strikes at the very heart of religious freedom in America,” said Daniel Kaminetsky, General Counsel of Agudath Israel. “The City of University Heights’ actions against Mr. Grand represent exactly the kind of government overreach that RLUIPA and the First Amendment were designed to prevent. We urge the Supreme Court to take up this case.”

Agudath Israel thanks Joshua C. McDaniel, Parker W. Knight III, Kathryn F. Mahoney, and Jacob M. McIntosh of the Religious Freedom Clinic at Harvard Law School, who prepared the brief.