A long-running legal dispute against a city in Ohio has received the backing of the U.S. Catholic bishops as it seeks to both assert a religious liberty claim and challenge a long-standing U.S. rule over when a lawsuit can be brought before a court.
Daniel Grand filed a lawsuit against the city of University Heights, Ohio, in September 2022 after the city blocked his efforts to convene a minyan, or Jewish prayer group, of about a dozen friends at his home. The city directed that he would have to acquire a special-use permit to host the group.
"They said if I got the permit, I could have the prayer group," he told EWTN News. "But halfway into this ordeal, I learned that if anybody qualifies for this permit, there is no residence allowed [where the permit is granted]." His family would have to move in the event the permit was granted, he said.
The federal district court dismissed his case on the grounds of a legal concept known as "finality," a rule that holds that a lawsuit can only be brought if a plaintiff has exhausted all other relevant options first.
Jonathan Gross, an attorney who is representing Grand in the ongoing dispute, said governments will sometimes use this rule in order to thwart a lawsuit attempt.
"Certain jurisdictions recognize that the government controls everything and that if they want they can 'jerk you around' and table your case indefinitely to prevent you from ever getting finality that allows you to sue," he said.
"If local government can do whatever they want with your application and make it so you never get a final decision, then you're ultimately blocked from ever suing them, and they know that," he said.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the case on finality grounds; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld that dismissal. Grand and his attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to review the case and rule on the finality question so that the religious liberty suit can proceed.
"We obviously assert that Daniel was harmed," Gross said. "But we didn't even go to court because we didn't get the final decision."
Decision would 'open up the Hoover Dam' for some lawsuits
Grand and his attorneys are hoping to resolve the finality question at the Supreme Court for the sake of both themselves and plaintiffs in other lawsuits.
A favorable decision from the high court would "open up the Hoover Dam for everyone who wants to get into federal court but is being denied because you didn't complete some sort of process," Grand told EWTN News.
Yet Grand himself is still focused on resolving the religious liberty dispute as well. Among other supporters, the lawsuit has received backing from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which filed an amicus brief in appeals court arguing that Grand's religious liberty claims should be considered without being subject to "finality."
Religious plaintiffs have standing to sue "as soon as a credible threat arises," the bishops said in their filing, arguing that court processes that play out over "months or years" due to finality rules serve as a "constitutional harm" in and of themselves.
In his filing with the Supreme Court, Grand argued that the case is "a playbook for government-sponsored religious discrimination."
Speaking to EWTN News, Grand disputed the implicit contention that "10 Jews in a room makes it a synagogue." He said his aim was simply to host a small group to speak to God.
"It was on my heart to have a prayer gathering, and I thought nothing more than that," he said.
