The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging local zoning regulations that a Jewish man claims prevented him from practicing his faith in his own home. The case, Grand v. City of University Heights, centers on whether a "final decision" rule, typically applied in property disputes, can also prevent individuals from accessing federal courts to challenge alleged First Amendment violations.
Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew in University Heights, Ohio, was sent a cease-and-desist letter by the city in January 2021 after inviting neighbors to pray at his home. His faith requires him to pray with a minyan, a quorum of ten men, and forbids him from driving on the Sabbath, making attendance at a distant synagogue impractical. The letter informed Grand that he would need a special use permit to use his home as a "place of religious assembly." Failure to obtain the permit could result in citations and fines for code violations.
Grand applied for the permit but found the process difficult. During a zoning board hearing, one neighbor reportedly expressed concern that the neighborhood would "be labeled as Jewish." Grand also learned that obtaining the permit would reclassify his home as a "house of worship" under the zoning code, meaning he could not reside there, only use it for prayer.
He subsequently abandoned the permit process and filed a civil rights lawsuit, citing the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). However, a unanimous Sixth Circuit panel dismissed the case. The court ruled that the claim was not ripe because Grand had withdrawn his permit application, meaning a "final decision" had not been reached. This decision was based on the ripeness rule established in the 1985 takings case Williamson County Planning v. Hamilton Bank.
Critics argue that applying the finality rule to First Amendment cases is problematic. Unlike takings cases, where the injury depends on the extent of administrative action, a First Amendment injury can occur the moment an individual faces a credible threat of enforcement. As established in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, such a threat can itself be an actionable injury.
Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor, has argued that this legal maneuver allows cities to suppress religious gatherings or other assemblies by ordering them to stop and then using bureaucratic processes to block judicial review. The split among federal circuits on how to apply the finality rule means that the ability to challenge such actions can depend on geographic location.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case could clarify whether individuals must exhaust administrative processes before bringing First Amendment claims, particularly in cases involving religious freedom and land use regulations. The principle at stake, according to critics, is whether citizens should need government permission to gather and pray in their own homes.