City Zoning and Minyans

 

Daniel Grand, a practicing Orthodox Jew, faced a difficult dilemma. His city, University Heights Ohio, has strict zoning laws in place concerning places of worship. This has led to synagogues generally being on the outskirts of town. Grand decided to host prayer meetings in his house in order to fulfill what he sees as his religious duty as well as that of the community. Jewish law requires a quorum, called a minyan, of at least 10 men for prayers, so the practice necessarily requires a gathering of at least a small group of people. It also prohibits driving on certain holy days, such as the Sabbath and high holidays, making it difficult to get to a synagogue to gather and pray with other men. Grand’s plan was to host religious gatherings for men on these days so that neither he nor his community would have to drive to a synagogue on a day on which driving is forbidden.

Before his first gathering took place, a neighbor complained to the city of University Heights about the meeting. This prompted a cease-and-desist letter from the city, prohibiting Grand from using his house as a “place of religious assembly”. His house was not zoned for religious gatherings, which made his planned gathering illegal. The next day, Grand filed a Special Use permit under the University Heights Planning Commission in order to hold religious gatherings in his home despite the zoning restrictions. At a public hearing on his application, Grand faced pushback from neighbors, and the discussion was tabled with a second meeting planned. Grand withdrew his application before the second hearing, but the hearing nevertheless commenced. The Mayor asked community members to report violations of zoning law at this hearing. The police department also starting monitoring Grand’s house for violations of the religious gathering policy.

About 18 months after withdrawing his application, Grand filed a lawsuit against University Heights. This suit was first heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and then in the United States Sixth District Court of appeals. Among other claims, Grand claimed that the city’s zoning rules had a “chilling” effect on his first amendment practice. The court points out that Grand chose to withdraw his applications before the hearings on his special use permit were concluded. In this way, the court says, Grand was “the author of any chilling effect on his First Amendment interests.” Grand also admitted to convening at least 1 minyan on the Sabbath after the planning commission meetings ended, which the court said “does not sound like chill”. The 6^th district court ultimately ruled in favor of the city on all claims. However, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, who accepted the case and will hear arguments in December. Grand also made a facial claim in his lawsuit. He claimed that the zoning ordinances are unlawful because requiring permission for religious assembly is always unlawful. The court ruled that this facial claim is invalid because Grand couldn't prove that the zoning laws would be unlawful in any context.

The fundamental free exercise issue in this case concerns the ability of cities to create zoning restrictions in regards to religious gatherings. Zoning restrictions have a strong potential to violate the free exercise of religions with specific rules about gathering, as Orthodox Judaism does. Religious rules and zoning laws may directly contradict each other which creates an array of potential constitutional issues.

University Heights is highlighted in orange; blue tags show locations of synagogues in and around the city.

Something that the court did not consider that I think is relevant is whether or not the zoning laws geographically prohibit Grand from getting to a synagogue without driving. University Heights is a small city on the outskirts of Cleveland Ohio with a total area of 1.83 square miles. Google Maps confirms that Orthodox synagogues cluster on the outskirts of town. However, due to the small size of the town, there is at least one Orthodox synagogue within a 30-45 minute walk of most of the town, according to the Google Maps navigation tool. It is unclear which part of town Grand lives in. However, I think that having to walk 30 minutes to engage in religious practice is not overly restrictive on Grand’s free exercise. If the city were much larger, he would have a better case that keeping him from holding meetings in his house has a chilling effect on his religious practice. However, given the small size of the city and relative density of synagogues on the outskirts of the city, the zoning laws don’t necessarily chill the religious practice of Orthodox Jews. 

Overall, I think that Grand doesn't have a reasonable claim that the city chilled his free exercise. By choosing to withdraw his Special Use permit before it was fully processed, he chose to self-restrict his religious practice. Moreover, the city doesn't outright prohibit religious gatherings without any exception; the Special Use permit exists for cases like Grand's where there may be a good reason for having an exception to religious gathering laws. Even if he allowed the application to be fully processed and he got rejected I don't think he has a valid first amendment claim. There are likely synagogues within walking distance that he can travel to in order to fulfill his religious duties. 

 

Sources:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/24-3876/24-3876-2025-11-13.html

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1TSmrGk8S3Tc0MiSSJx8LYkKoLK_H5Uc&usp=sharing