First & Fourteenth filed an amicus brief on behalf of a coalition of national Catholic and Protestant religious organizations in Grand v. City of University Heights, and the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide when a plaintiff may sue to protect religious freedom before enforcement begins.
Daniel Grand, a Jewish man in University Heights, Ohio, opened his home for prayer meetings. The city responded with a cease-and-desist letter, police surveillance, a prosecutor’s investigation, and a property inspection, all because local zoning prohibits “houses of worship.”
When Grand sued, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the case as not ripe, requiring him to first exhaust an optional permit exemption process. The Supreme Court will decide whether the credible-threat standard from Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus governs pre-enforcement religious liberty cases, or whether courts may borrow the ripeness doctrine from Williamson County, a property-takings case.
The brief, filed on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Assemblies of God, and the Seventh-day Adventists, warned that pairing restrictions on religious exercise with exemptions that are themselves weaponized to burden religious organizations is a growing government tactic to block religious plaintiffs from federal court for years.
First & Fourteenth attorneys Andrew Nussbaum and James Compton represented the amici in this matter.
Read Brief Here: Grand v. City of University Heights