For over a century, the National Council of Young Israel has been at the forefront of American and Israel advocacy and activism on behalf of the American Jewish community. Driven by its desire to promote and preserve Torah-true Judaism and the Jewish State, the National Council of Young Israel regularly speaks out on political issues that impact the Jewish community, both in the United States and in Israel. It frequently engages governmental leaders when important legislative matters arise, and it often facilitates political advocacy efforts among its members when the situation warrants swift and decisive action from American Jewry.
During the past few years, NCYI has filed various amicus briefs, or friend of the court briefs, in various cases throughout the country, in an attempt to preserve and expand for our members the liberties granted by the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. Cases that are currently pending in which NCYI is involved are discussed below.
Thank you to David Schultz and Adam Cohen for working on these briefs on behalf of NCYI. If any of you are aware of any legal matters that you believe NCYI should become involved in, please contact the NCYI office or David Schultz, at [email protected].
St. Dominic Academy, et al. v. Makin, et al.
On November 4, 2024, NCYI filed an amicus brief in St. Dominic Academy, et al. v. Makin, et al., a case currently pending in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. A link to NCYI’s amicus brief may be found below. The brief was filed by the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic at Notre Dame Law School on behalf of NCYI and the Notre Dame Education Law Project.
In Carson v. Makin, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Maine could not exclude private schools from its tuition assistance program simply because these schools were religious. Maine responded by updating the Maine Human Rights Act to provide that, in order to participate in the tuition assistance program, private schools were required to comply with the Act’s anti-discrimination provisions, prohibiting discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. St. Dominic Academy, a Roman Catholic school in Maine, and a group of families sued the state, arguing, among other things, that forcing a Catholic school to abandon its religious preferences in admissions, hiring, and student conduct essentially forces schools to forfeit their religious identity to get state funds.
In its amicus brief, NCYI argued that Maine’s new rules strip a religious school of its ability to create an academic environment that aligns with the school’s religious beliefs. NCYI explained that a purpose of Jewish schools is to integrate faith with learning and to transmit Jewish values through education. To fulfill this educational mission, Jewish schools must be free to make choices that Maine’s law
prohibits. To educate and form children in accordance with any set of religious beliefs, a school must have the ability to make classroom decisions that prioritize those beliefs and must have the freedom to make decisions regarding admissions, financial aid and instruction that ensure that its students and teachers align with the school’s religious mission.
The First Circuit of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case on January 7, 2025. That court’s decision in the case is still pending.
Woolard, et al. v. Thurmond, et al.
On November 3, 2025, NCYI filed an amicus brief in Woolard v. Thurmond, a case that was then pending in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A link to the brief, in which NCYI was represented by outstanding lawyers at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, may be found below.
Woolard involves restrictions imposed by California’s independent-study program, which prevent families that wish to homeschool their children from using curricula that include religious teachings and secular educational materials that are published by religious entities. NCYI filed its brief in support of the plaintiffs, Christian parents who were being denied equal access to the program.
On March 23, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed an Order and Amended Opinion in the case, rejecting the position of plaintiffs and NCYI.
Plaintiffs intend to petition the United States Supreme Court to hear the case and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP has agreed to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs.
Lost Lake Holdings, LLC et al. v. Town of Forestburgh, et al.
On December 15, 2025, NCYI filed an amicus brief in Lost Lake Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Town of Forestburgh, et al., a case currently pending in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A link to NCYI’s amicus brief may be found below. The brief was filed by the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic at Notre Dame Law School on behalf of NCYI, Agudath Israel of America, the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, and the Jewish Community Council of Sullivan County.
In Lost Lake Holdings, the Town of Forestburgh, located in Sullivan County, New York, rallied against a proposed Hasidic Jewish housing development in the town, denying permits and dragging out processes for approval of the project. Plaintiffs sued the town, the town board, and the town zoning board, among others, alleging claims under the United States and New York State Constitutions and the Fair Housing Act. Although the record was filled with anti-Semitic comments, the District Court dismissed the case, finding that the case was not yet ripe for judicial review because plaintiffs still needed to follow certain administrative processes. In so ruling, the District Court disregarded the evidence of anti-Semitic hostility because there was no guarantee that the additional administrative processes that Plaintiffs needed to seek would be futile.
NCYI’s amicus brief, which is filed in support of the Plaintiffs, argues that that the Court of Appeals must make clear that evidence of hostility plays an important role when evaluating whether zoning authorities have dug in their heels against a particular development and failing to account for prejudice in land use processes threatens special harm to Jewish communities.
Plaintiffs’ appeal of the District Court’s ruling currently is still pending before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.
On April 10, 2026, NCYI filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al. A link to NCYI’s amicus brief may be found below. The brief was filed by the National Jewish Advocacy Center on behalf of NCYI, the Orthodox Union, and the National Jewish Advocacy Center itself.
In Grand, plaintiff Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew, emailed roughly a dozen friends to invite them to form a minyan in his living room to pray over Shabbat. Before the minyan could occur, the City of University Heights, Ohio, issued a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that Grand was operating an illegal “place of religious assembly” in violation of local zoning laws.
Grand filed a federal lawsuit against the city, claiming violations of his constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a federal district court’s dismissal of Grand’s claims, ruling that they were not ripe for judicial review because had had failed to complete the city’s zoning process.
NCYI’s amicus brief in support of Grand argues, among other things, that the Sixth Circuit’s decision betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the minyan requirement under Jewish law and what was taken from Grand by the city’s cease-and-desist order. The brief further argues that a government order that definitively prohibits religious exercise and is backed by the threat of enforcement inflicts an immediate First Amendment injury, which is immediately justiciable, regardless of whether administrative processes remain available. The brief also explains that the case is another example of the use of facially neutral zoning laws to target and discriminate against Orthodox Jewish communities.
The case remains pending before the Unites States Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on Grand’s petition for certiorari asking the Court to hear the case.