The Story
A Prayer Group. A Hostile City. A Constitutional Fight.
Daniel Grand is an Orthodox Jew living in University Heights, Ohio — a suburb of Cleveland. Like millions of observant Jews, he observes the Sabbath and Jewish holidays, during which he gathers with fellow worshippers in a traditional minyan: a prayer quorum of ten men.
His living room. Ten men. Prayers that have been recited for thousands of years.
"The City's mayor sent a cease-and-desist letter, forced Daniel through a hostile public hearing process, and then — after Daniel withdrew his application — encouraged neighbors to report any religious activity at his home."
— Summary of Events, Grand v. City of University HeightsThe City of University Heights treated Daniel's prayer group as a zoning violation. He was required to apply for a special use permit — a process that subjected his faith practice to a quasi-judicial public hearing, neighbor objections, and local officials who made clear they did not welcome the gatherings.
When Daniel withdrew his application rather than endure further targeting, the mayor's response was not relief — it was escalation. Neighbors were encouraged to report any religious activity at his home. City officials ordered police to spy on Daniel's home. At times, the City left his garbage uncollected. A private citizen was placed under government surveillance for praying.
Daniel filed suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the First Amendment, arguing that the City had imposed a substantial burden on his religious exercise, treated religious land uses unequally, and chilled his constitutional rights through government threats.
The district court dismissed his claims as unripe. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. But the U.S. Department of Justice disagreed — filing an amicus brief supporting Daniel's position that the courts applied the wrong legal standard.
On February 11, 2026, Daniel filed a pro se petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The question: whether the First Amendment's chilling-effect doctrine applies when government threats chill religious exercise — or whether courts can turn away such claims on procedural grounds before they are ever heard.
"You don't need a city permit to pray with your friends. Every American has the right to peacefully practice their faith in their own home — and to seek relief from federal courts when government officials interfere."
