Sunday, March 15, 2026

Land for Prayer: The Latest Shot in the Long War Over Religious Liberty and Land Use

Land for Prayer:
The latest shot in the long war over religious liberty and land use.
The right to establish places of worship in America remains all too unsettled as demonstrated by a series of landmark cases originating in the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio — a region with a surprisingly significant role in shaping religious freedom jurisprudence.

As Jews in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb went to the high holy day service of Rosh Hashanah, a private investigator was watching them. The man in the black SUV videotaped congregants entering the synagogue and the city of University Heights charged that 50 people had gone to pray, in excess of a court order limiting the number of congregants to only 36 people.

It was 2021 and existing battles over houses of worship had taken on a new intensity in the COVID era. While most cities, including Cleveland, generally avoided the level of extreme abuses seen in New York under Gov. Andrew Cuomo or California under Gov. Gavin Newsom, Cleveland, its suburbs and synagogues had long been in the curious position of creating legal precedents on religious freedom.

Back in 1925, Cleveland Jewish Orphan Home v. Village of University Heights over discrimination against an orphanage, originally established in 1868 for orphans of the Civil War, helped set precedents for religious zoning cases including churches battling over being excluded from residential neighborhoods through municipal zoning regulations.

Tenafly Eruv Ass’n, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly, also involving discrimination against Jewish religious practices out of nearby New Jersey, would go on to be cited in multiple COVID religious discrimination cases including Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (which also included two Orthodox Jewish synagogues) and helped dismantle the COVID regime.

Now Grand v. City of University Heights, a case that dates back to 2021, is being appealed to the Supreme Court in the latest battle between municipalities and freedom of worship.

And the Trump administration had previously come out on Grand’s site with a supportive brief.

What is it about a case in an obscure suburb that led to a 28-page legal brief from the Department of Justice? The answer lies in the larger question of the right to prayer in America.

In 2021, Daniel Grand sent an email to a dozen people within two blocks inviting them to a prayer group at his house. Grand, who was new in town, received a phone call from the mayor warning him not to proceed. According to Grand, he was told that the city would “use any force necessary to prosecute” him if he insisted on having prayers at his house. Since then, Grand claims that he has faced multiple examples of legal harassment by the city against his property.

The prayer group was only intended to convene on Saturdays and holidays, times during which Orthodox Jews do not drive anywhere, so that parking would not be an issue.

Nevertheless a ‘cease and desist’ order was issued.

At the conclusion of a city Zoom meeting in March 2021, Mayor Michael Dylan Brennan publicly encouraged residents to report any observed prayer activity. “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,” he stated. Grand has further alleged that police were directed to conduct surveillance of his home using unmarked vehicles, a claim consistent with the city’s documented use of private investigators to monitor a local synagogue.

Such battles have been taking place in the Cleveland suburbs for over a century.

Cleveland Jewish Orphan Home v. Village of University Heights had hinged in part on the use of selective zoning restrictions. The construction of the Fairmount Temple in Beachwood in the late 40s and 50s, a congregation whose origins had dated back to 1842, had led to four years of legal battles over the contention that the wealthy Reform synagogue would “be detrimental to the public safety, welfare, and convenience” that eventually ended up in the Ohio Supreme Court (State ex rel. Anshe Chesed Congregation v. Bruggemeir). --->READ MORE HERE

If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.


No comments:

Post a Comment