Friday, July 10, 2026
He was barred from hosting a home minyan now the Supreme Court will hear his case
Who gets to decide when a home is considered a synagogue?
A question fit for Talmudic scholars or, in this case, U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
The nation’s High Court effectively agreed to consider that question last month, after an Ohio city told an Orthodox Jewish man he needed a permit to host Shabbat prayers in his home.
The dispute began in 2021, when the plaintiff, Daniel Grand, invited 15 friends to his home in University Heights, Ohio, to mark the Sabbath. Neighbors — including some Jewish residents — complained to the city that the proposed gathering would turn Grand’s home into a synagogue, violating residential zoning laws.
The city quickly escalated the matter, sending Grand a cease-and-desist letter and telling him to apply for a special-use permit, according to court documents.
Outraged by the idea that he would need the government’s permission to pray in his own home, Grand sued the city in federal court. The lower court declined to hear Grand’s case, saying he first had to exhaust the city’s permit process before asking the courts to intervene. An appellate court upheld that ruling, with the Supreme Court now set to hear his case in its next term.
“This is not a Jewish issue. This is an American issue,” Grand told the Forward. “Next thing they’ll tell you is eight people sitting at a dining room table makes you an illegal restaurant.”
The case’s origins
When Grand moved into his home in 2019, he faced a recurring inconvenience: The nearest Orthodox synagogue was nearly a mile away.
In keeping with Jewish law, Grand doesn’t drive on Shabbat. With prayers held in the morning, afternoon and evening, that meant a six-mile round trip on foot if he went back and forth from his home to the shul for each service. In bad weather, the schlep could be taxing, he said, especially since Orthodox Jews do not open umbrellas on Shabbat.
In 2021, Grand, who lives with his wife and five children, began to explore another option: Could he gather a minyan — the quorum of 10 Jewish men required for certain prayers — in his home?
He emailed 15 of his friends.
“You are cordially invited to join us this Shabbos for the inauguration of the Shomayah Tefillah Beis Hakeneset,” Grand wrote, using Hebrew that roughly translates to “house of prayer and assembly.”
“You will see the shul entrance — keep a look out for the orange windows,” Grand continued. “And please spread the word to whomever you feel might be interested in coming.”
Grand noted a rabbi would be in attendance and wrote that “the shul” would be a place “where people come to really, seriously daven to Hashem.”
But before Grand had the chance to host, a neighbor thwarted his plans.
Ben Feldman, who identified himself as “a supporter of the Jewish community in town” and “a member of one of the official zoned synagogues,” forwarded the invite via Facebook Messenger to then-University Heights Mayor Michael Brennan.
Feldman expressed concern that “non-zoned makeshift synagogues” like Grand’s could harm “official synagogues.” It being 2021, he also alleged “they are not practicing any Covid protocols.”
“If there is anything you could do to put a stop to this, it would be greatly appreciated,” Feldman wrote to Brennan. Feldman did not respond to the Forward’s request for comment.
That same day, Brennan personally called Grand and told him the city would be sending a cease-and-desist letter, court documents allege. Grand said he was shocked that the mayor would intervene in what seemed like a private matter, and he pushed back on the idea that his residence had become a house of worship.
“I said, ‘You mean to tell me if 10 Jews come to my house, you classify that as a synagogue?’ And he says, ‘Essentially, yes,’” Grand said. “So I was taken aback.”
Brennan, who decided not to run for re-election after completing his second term in office last year, referred all questions to a lawyer who did not respond to the Forward’s request for comment.
The fallout
At first, Grand was willing to go through with the city’s permit process. He submitted an application seeking permission to use his soundproof music room, where he played drums during the week, for “periodic religious gatherings.”
A public hearing over the permit application followed, during which neighbors raised concerns about traffic and noise. Grand countered that those fears reflected a misunderstanding of Orthodox Jewish practice: Prohibited from driving on Shabbat, worshippers would walk to his home, so parking couldn’t possibly be an issue. And the Sabbath prohibits music and amplified sound.
But some neighbors like Adrienne Yelsky, who had lived in her house across the street from Grand’s for 46 years at the time of the hearing, expressed their concerns about changing the residential character of the neighborhood.
“We don’t want a bank on this block; we don’t want a car wash on this block,” Yelsky testified at the hearing. “We don’t want a grocery store on this block; we don’t want a church.”
Some comments turned ugly. One neighbor sent a letter to the University Heights Planning Commission with the following statement: “I am not Jewish and I do not want our neighborhood labeled as Jewish.”
“I felt very offended, and I felt very hurt,” Grand said. “I look at this as bigotry to me.”
But Yelsky, who is Jewish, rejected the characterization of the dispute as antisemitic across the board. Suspicious of renovations at Grand’s home that made room for extra parking, Yelsky said she didn’t buy that Grand only planned to hold services on Shabbat.
“Believe me, for us as Jews, it was very difficult to even participate in this, because you don’t want to look like you’re against your own people,” Yelsky told the Forward. “On the other hand, what’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong.”
After the hearing, Grand said he discovered another problem: The special-use permit prohibited “sleeping or residential use” on any property covered by the permit. In other words, if Grand wanted to convert his home into a house of worship, he could no longer live there.
Unwilling to move out of his home, Grand withdrew his application.
But the matter was far from resolved. The city Planning Commission held another meeting, during which then-Mayor Brennan issued a warning.
“To the community members who are here, let there be no question. There is no permission granted here to operate a house of assembly or conduct activities consistent with one,” he told the crowd on Zoom. “If you observe such activities — and I hope you do not — but if you do, you may report them to the city, and the city will enforce its laws, which exist for the benefit of the entire community, and we will seek all appropriate remedies in court.”
Grand said the mayor’s directive kicked off a campaign of surveillance and harassment.
According to the lawsuit, Grand’s neighbor installed surveillance cameras pointed at his house, and a police lieutenant instructed officers to “make frequent drive-bys” past Grand’s home and issue citations for any parking violations.
The complaint also alleges police twice approached a driver wearing a yarmulke sitting in a parked car outside Grand’s home and asked, “Are you here for the shul?”
“It was like all hell broke loose,” Grand said. “It was nightmarish. It was terrible.”
The legal issues
According to Michael Helfand, a professor at the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law who studies the intersection of law and religion, this isn’t the first time zoning laws have clashed with religious practice. For instance, Chabad houses have run into trouble with local municipalities who have alleged that the centers of Jewish life are synagogues, not homes.
In 2000, Congress responded to concerns that local governments were using zoning laws to restrict religious activities by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act., known as RLIUPA.
The federal law prohibits zoning laws that substantially burden religious exercise. It also requires religious assemblies to be treated on equal terms with comparable secular ones. As Helfand put it, a city cannot prohibit 10 people from gathering for a minyan if it allows 10 people to gather for a yoga class.
But in Grand’s case, Helfand said, the Supreme Court will not directly decide whether the city’s zoning code violated federal law.
Instead, the justices will answer a procedural question: Did Grand have to exhaust the city’s permit process and receive a denial before he could bring his challenge to court? Or did the procedural hoops themselves constitute a violation of Grand’s religious liberty?
“You can see how procedure in these circumstances can really undermine somebody’s religious rights,” Helfand said. “Being stuck in the Kafkaesque process of a zoning board that goes on for years and years before you can ever walk into court.”
A lawyer for the City of University Heights did not respond to the Forward’s request for comment. In legal filings, the city has argued it never actually took an enforcement action against Grand because he abandoned his permit application before the city reached a final decision.
But Grand’s lawyers argue the cease-and-desist letter and subsequent surveillance of Grand’s home created a chilling effect, deterring Grand from hosting the Shabbat gatherings and thus violating his religious liberty.
Grand said he has been unable to observe Shabbat on several occasions since receiving the cease-and-desist letter. Even if he prevails at the Supreme Court, he said, he’s unsure whether he will resume inviting people over to pray because his friends are now “afraid of retaliation.”
Five years later, Grand said he’s stunned that an invitation to Shabbat has turned into a case before the Supreme Court.
“What was the city doing in my life at all? What did I ever do that they showed up at my door?” Grand said. “I didn’t do anything wrong.”
A question fit for Talmudic scholars or, in this case, U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
The nation’s High Court effectively agreed to consider that question last month, after an Ohio city told an Orthodox Jewish man he needed a permit to host Shabbat prayers in his home.
The dispute began in 2021, when the plaintiff, Daniel Grand, invited 15 friends to his home in University Heights, Ohio, to mark the Sabbath. Neighbors — including some Jewish residents — complained to the city that the proposed gathering would turn Grand’s home into a synagogue, violating residential zoning laws.
The city quickly escalated the matter, sending Grand a cease-and-desist letter and telling him to apply for a special-use permit, according to court documents.
Outraged by the idea that he would need the government’s permission to pray in his own home, Grand sued the city in federal court. The lower court declined to hear Grand’s case, saying he first had to exhaust the city’s permit process before asking the courts to intervene. An appellate court upheld that ruling, with the Supreme Court now set to hear his case in its next term.
“This is not a Jewish issue. This is an American issue,” Grand told the Forward. “Next thing they’ll tell you is eight people sitting at a dining room table makes you an illegal restaurant.”
The case’s origins
When Grand moved into his home in 2019, he faced a recurring inconvenience: The nearest Orthodox synagogue was nearly a mile away.
In keeping with Jewish law, Grand doesn’t drive on Shabbat. With prayers held in the morning, afternoon and evening, that meant a six-mile round trip on foot if he went back and forth from his home to the shul for each service. In bad weather, the schlep could be taxing, he said, especially since Orthodox Jews do not open umbrellas on Shabbat.
In 2021, Grand, who lives with his wife and five children, began to explore another option: Could he gather a minyan — the quorum of 10 Jewish men required for certain prayers — in his home?
He emailed 15 of his friends.
“You are cordially invited to join us this Shabbos for the inauguration of the Shomayah Tefillah Beis Hakeneset,” Grand wrote, using Hebrew that roughly translates to “house of prayer and assembly.”
“You will see the shul entrance — keep a look out for the orange windows,” Grand continued. “And please spread the word to whomever you feel might be interested in coming.”
Grand noted a rabbi would be in attendance and wrote that “the shul” would be a place “where people come to really, seriously daven to Hashem.”
But before Grand had the chance to host, a neighbor thwarted his plans.
Ben Feldman, who identified himself as “a supporter of the Jewish community in town” and “a member of one of the official zoned synagogues,” forwarded the invite via Facebook Messenger to then-University Heights Mayor Michael Brennan.
Feldman expressed concern that “non-zoned makeshift synagogues” like Grand’s could harm “official synagogues.” It being 2021, he also alleged “they are not practicing any Covid protocols.”
“If there is anything you could do to put a stop to this, it would be greatly appreciated,” Feldman wrote to Brennan. Feldman did not respond to the Forward’s request for comment.
That same day, Brennan personally called Grand and told him the city would be sending a cease-and-desist letter, court documents allege. Grand said he was shocked that the mayor would intervene in what seemed like a private matter, and he pushed back on the idea that his residence had become a house of worship.
“I said, ‘You mean to tell me if 10 Jews come to my house, you classify that as a synagogue?’ And he says, ‘Essentially, yes,’” Grand said. “So I was taken aback.”
Brennan, who decided not to run for re-election after completing his second term in office last year, referred all questions to a lawyer who did not respond to the Forward’s request for comment.
The fallout
At first, Grand was willing to go through with the city’s permit process. He submitted an application seeking permission to use his soundproof music room, where he played drums during the week, for “periodic religious gatherings.”
A public hearing over the permit application followed, during which neighbors raised concerns about traffic and noise. Grand countered that those fears reflected a misunderstanding of Orthodox Jewish practice: Prohibited from driving on Shabbat, worshippers would walk to his home, so parking couldn’t possibly be an issue. And the Sabbath prohibits music and amplified sound.
But some neighbors like Adrienne Yelsky, who had lived in her house across the street from Grand’s for 46 years at the time of the hearing, expressed their concerns about changing the residential character of the neighborhood.
“We don’t want a bank on this block; we don’t want a car wash on this block,” Yelsky testified at the hearing. “We don’t want a grocery store on this block; we don’t want a church.”
Some comments turned ugly. One neighbor sent a letter to the University Heights Planning Commission with the following statement: “I am not Jewish and I do not want our neighborhood labeled as Jewish.”
“I felt very offended, and I felt very hurt,” Grand said. “I look at this as bigotry to me.”
But Yelsky, who is Jewish, rejected the characterization of the dispute as antisemitic across the board. Suspicious of renovations at Grand’s home that made room for extra parking, Yelsky said she didn’t buy that Grand only planned to hold services on Shabbat.
“Believe me, for us as Jews, it was very difficult to even participate in this, because you don’t want to look like you’re against your own people,” Yelsky told the Forward. “On the other hand, what’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong.”
After the hearing, Grand said he discovered another problem: The special-use permit prohibited “sleeping or residential use” on any property covered by the permit. In other words, if Grand wanted to convert his home into a house of worship, he could no longer live there.
Unwilling to move out of his home, Grand withdrew his application.
But the matter was far from resolved. The city Planning Commission held another meeting, during which then-Mayor Brennan issued a warning.
“To the community members who are here, let there be no question. There is no permission granted here to operate a house of assembly or conduct activities consistent with one,” he told the crowd on Zoom. “If you observe such activities — and I hope you do not — but if you do, you may report them to the city, and the city will enforce its laws, which exist for the benefit of the entire community, and we will seek all appropriate remedies in court.”
Grand said the mayor’s directive kicked off a campaign of surveillance and harassment.
According to the lawsuit, Grand’s neighbor installed surveillance cameras pointed at his house, and a police lieutenant instructed officers to “make frequent drive-bys” past Grand’s home and issue citations for any parking violations.
The complaint also alleges police twice approached a driver wearing a yarmulke sitting in a parked car outside Grand’s home and asked, “Are you here for the shul?”
“It was like all hell broke loose,” Grand said. “It was nightmarish. It was terrible.”
The legal issues
According to Michael Helfand, a professor at the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law who studies the intersection of law and religion, this isn’t the first time zoning laws have clashed with religious practice. For instance, Chabad houses have run into trouble with local municipalities who have alleged that the centers of Jewish life are synagogues, not homes.
In 2000, Congress responded to concerns that local governments were using zoning laws to restrict religious activities by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act., known as RLIUPA.
The federal law prohibits zoning laws that substantially burden religious exercise. It also requires religious assemblies to be treated on equal terms with comparable secular ones. As Helfand put it, a city cannot prohibit 10 people from gathering for a minyan if it allows 10 people to gather for a yoga class.
But in Grand’s case, Helfand said, the Supreme Court will not directly decide whether the city’s zoning code violated federal law.
Instead, the justices will answer a procedural question: Did Grand have to exhaust the city’s permit process and receive a denial before he could bring his challenge to court? Or did the procedural hoops themselves constitute a violation of Grand’s religious liberty?
“You can see how procedure in these circumstances can really undermine somebody’s religious rights,” Helfand said. “Being stuck in the Kafkaesque process of a zoning board that goes on for years and years before you can ever walk into court.”
A lawyer for the City of University Heights did not respond to the Forward’s request for comment. In legal filings, the city has argued it never actually took an enforcement action against Grand because he abandoned his permit application before the city reached a final decision.
But Grand’s lawyers argue the cease-and-desist letter and subsequent surveillance of Grand’s home created a chilling effect, deterring Grand from hosting the Shabbat gatherings and thus violating his religious liberty.
Grand said he has been unable to observe Shabbat on several occasions since receiving the cease-and-desist letter. Even if he prevails at the Supreme Court, he said, he’s unsure whether he will resume inviting people over to pray because his friends are now “afraid of retaliation.”
Five years later, Grand said he’s stunned that an invitation to Shabbat has turned into a case before the Supreme Court.
“What was the city doing in my life at all? What did I ever do that they showed up at my door?” Grand said. “I didn’t do anything wrong.”
Comments:
Post a Comment
