Can local government threaten to punish you for practicing your religion in your own home — and then prevent you from challenging that threat in court? It sounds absurd, but that is exactly what’s at stake in Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio, an important religious liberty case before the Supreme Court this fall.
Daniel Grand is an Orthodox Jew living in the Cleveland suburbs. Being Orthodox, he is required to pray three times a day, preferably with a minyan — a gathering of 10 adult men. He is also not allowed to drive on the Sabbath. Because his local synagogue is far away, Grand invited 10 male friends to gather at his home on Saturday morning for prayer services.
The city of University Heights issued a cease-and-desist order, deeming the gathering a “place of religious assembly” and illegal without a city-issued permit. When Grand filed suit arguing a violation of his religious liberty, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said the case was not “ripe” for review because Grand had withdrawn his permit application before the city reached a final decision.
That creates an extraordinary Catch-22: A city can restrict a religious person’s practice, threaten him with punishment and then keep him out of court until he undergoes the entire zoning process.
This case is not about whether an Orthodox Jew can pray in his home. It’s about whether any person can challenge a restriction on their religious practice or be forced to wait out a cumbersome and lengthy administrative process.
Religious Americans of all stripes enjoy unprecedented liberty in the United States.
The ruling has a ripple effect across religions, where practice is often centered around the home and time-specific. For Orthodox Jews, in-home prayer services on Sabbath and holidays are very common — sometimes for convenience, but often out of necessity. A sick or disabled Jew should not be denied the opportunity to pray with a minyan because of local zoning laws.
Similarly, a Jew who lost a parent, spouse, sibling or child observes Shiva, a seven-day period of mourning in the home that includes daily prayer service. According to the Sixth Circuit, a Jew in mourning must wait for a permit to host a gathering in his home — or wait for the permit to be denied before seeking relief in court.
For many Christian denominations, worship in the home with family and friends is an essential part of their religion. Protestantism has a long tradition of encouraging small gatherings for in-home prayer meetings and Bible study. Millions of Americans participate in the “house-church movement,” believing that small groups outside of church build community and foster personal relationships.
Muslims, too, center their religious life around the home, with prayer five times a day and an annual Ramadan celebration. The same is true for the broad cross-section of American religious life, from Hindus to the Amish to Latter-day Saints.
Whether University Heights violated Grand’s constitutional rights should be decided by a court. But a right you cannot enforce is no right at all. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion gives a blank check to cities to hold religious practice hostage to the bureaucratic whims of local government. It also creates a perverse incentive for cities to encourage delays without consequence.
This fight is not new. I know because I have been fighting religious discrimination in municipal land-use regulations for more than 25 years. In 2000, I was deeply involved in the legislative work that produced the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Congress passed RLUIPA because local governments across the country were using zoning laws to restrict religious life.
In the year 2026, zoning laws are still being used to stifle religious practice. But the Sixth Circuit’s ruling hands local officials a new weapon: They can burden religious exercise while delaying the decision that allows a citizen to challenge them in court.
Religious Americans of all stripes enjoy unprecedented liberty in the United States. We should be grateful, while never forgetting that our liberty is the result of constant vigilance and an individual’s constitutional right to seek judicial review when government crosses a line.
The Supreme Court should overturn the Sixth Circuit’s opinion and uphold that right. When government threatens our religious liberty, the court’s doors must stay open.