NACo Legal Advocacy: Grand v. City University Heights

Key Takeaways

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio, (24-3876), a case that could have significant implications for county land use and permitting processes. The case asks when a property owner may bring a federal lawsuit challenging a local zoning decision under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) (P.L. 106-274 114 Stat. 803).

At the center of the case is a procedural question known as finality: whether a local government must first reach a final or settled decision about how its zoning rules apply before a federal court can consider certain constitutional claims arising from that decision.

Background 

The case began in 2021 when Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jewish resident of University Heights, Ohio, sought to host a small prayer group at his home. City officials informed Grand that the gathering would require a special use permit and directed him to stop holding the gatherings without one.

Grand applied for a permit but later withdrew his application before the local administrative process was completed. He subsequently sued the City and several officials, arguing that the City's actions violated RLUIPA and his constitutional rights, including his right to the free exercise of religion.

The federal district court dismissed most of those claims without deciding their underlying merits, finding that the dispute was not yet ripe for federal review. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that decision in November 2025, concluding that the local body with authority to issue a final interpretation of the zoning code had never done so.

Grand argues that a different rule should apply to First Amendment claims. Under what is commonly referred to as the "chilling effect" doctrine, individuals generally do not have to wait for the government to impose a penalty before challenging a credible threat that discourages them from exercising a constitutional right.

The Court will now consider how that principle interacts with the finality requirement traditionally applied in land use disputes.

County Nexus

Counties rely on planning commissions, boards of zoning appeals and other administrative processes to interpret local ordinances and determine how they apply to individual properties. These processes can also give local governments an opportunity to clarify preliminary decisions or correct an initial interpretation before litigation begins.

If the Court preserves the finality requirement in cases involving religious or expressive uses of property, county land use bodies would generally retain an opportunity to reach a final or clearly settled position before a related federal lawsuit proceeds. However, if it determines that the finality requirement does not apply to these claims, federal litigation could potentially begin earlier in the local decision-making process. Depending on the scope of the Court's ruling, county actions such as preliminary notices, code enforcement correspondence or other actions involving religious or expressive activity could become the basis for federal litigation before a local appeals body has interpreted the ordinance or reached a final decision.

The implications could extend beyond traditional zoning disputes to other county permitting and regulatory processes that intersect with constitutionally protected activity.

The question before the Court is procedural rather than a determination of whether the City's treatment of Grand violated his religious liberty rights, but a broad ruling from the court could have sweeping impacts on county land-use processes. 

NACo Advocacy

NACo will be joining the Local Government Legal Center (LGLC) in filing an amicus brief in support of neither party. The brief will educate the Court on county land use processes and the value of allowing local bodies to reach a final decision before federal litigation begins.

Current Status

Merits briefing is underway before the Court with the opening brief due August 31, followed by the City's brief on October 16. 

Learn More about NACo’s Supreme Court Advocacy