Orthodox Synagogue in Orlando, FL Sues for Religious Discrimination
According to OTC's counsel, this case is about ensuring that minority faith institutions are not held to a different standard and that religious freedom is fully protected under the law. The Orlando Torah Center's lawsuit seeks to defend its rights under the First Amendment, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
'Religious freedom is not optional; it is a constitutional guarantee,' said counsel Roman Storzer of Storzer and Associates, a leader in First Amendment and RLUIPA law. 'OTC has every legal and moral right to exist, expand, and serve its community without undue burden or discrimination.'
The Orlando Torah Center, located along South Apopka Vineland Road in an area locally known as 'Church Row' for its concentration of more than a dozen churches, has served a walkable congregation since 2015. While numerous churches, a public school, and a daycare center have all received similar zoning approvals in similar zoning districts, OTC's request to expand for its religious use faced intense public opposition, including antisemitic remarks during public hearings, and was ultimately denied by the Board of County Commissioners on July 1, 2025, according to the legal complaint.
'Individuals of all faiths have a right to worship without outside interference,' said Mr. Storzer. 'OTC members have been part of their neighborhood for more than a decade. They have operated peacefully and built lasting relationships with families of all faiths. Disappointedly, they were denied the same rights routinely granted to others.'
OTC seeks to expand its facility to accommodate increased attendance, children's programs, and enhanced safety measures—especially important given the rise in antisemitic attacks targeting Jewish institutions across the country. According to the lawsuit, OTC members face severe hardship due to lack of space, including families having to participate in religious activities outdoors in the Florida heat, children being unable to attend holiday programs, and attendees being exposed to safety risks due to the inability to secure the building.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 6:25-cv-014.
To read the full complaint, please click here.
For media inquiries, please contact [email protected].
About Orlando Torah Center
Founded in 2011, the Orlando Torah Center (OTC) is an Orthodox synagogue committed to fostering a vibrant, welcoming community rooted in Torah learning, prayer, and acts of kindness. Serving a diverse and growing congregation, OTC offers educational programs, youth activities, and spiritual guidance for individuals and families at every stage of observance. As part of Orlando's thriving Torah infrastructure, OTC plays a central role in supporting Jewish life and continuity in the region.
Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same.
Ahmedabad Plane Crash
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
8 hours ago
- CNN
Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas' gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP
Supreme Court Supreme Court justicesFacebookTweetLink Follow The brazen partisan redistricting underway in Texas, with Republicans attempting to entrench themselves in office and Democrats weighing a counter-offensive in blue states, was greenlit by the US Supreme Court six years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts, in an opinion for a 5-4 court, declared that federal judges could not review extreme partisan gerrymanders to determine if they violated constitutional rights. Roberts' opinion reversed cases that would have allowed such districts – drawn to advantage one political party over another irrespective of voters' interests – to be challenged as violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and association and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The justices split among the familiar ideological lines, with the five conservatives ruling against partisan gerrymanders and the four liberals dissenting. 'Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one,' dissenting justices warned in 2019, 'The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.' That decision in Rucho v. Common Cause has generated a new era of partisan rivalry with vast repercussions for American democracy. The decision resonates as profoundly as the Roberts Court's decision last year in Trump v. United States, which granted presidents substantial immunity from criminal prosecution (also delivered among partisan lines). Trump has taken the 2024 ruling as a blank check, tearing through democratic norms. The gerrymandering case also lifted a federal guardrail. Lawsuits challenging extreme partisan gerrymanders can still be brought before state court judges. But state laws vary widely in their protections for redistricting practices and state judges differ in their ability to police the thorny political process. Roberts may have failed to foresee the consequences in 2019 and then in 2024. Or, alternatively, perhaps he understood and simply believed the effects were not properly the concern of the federal judiciary. In his opinion, Roberts acknowledged the apparent unfairness of gerrymandered districts. 'Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,' he wrote. But, he said, 'the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles,' … does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.' The chief justice said no constitutional authority exists for judges to oversee the politics of redistricting, nor are there standards for their decisions, that is, to know when state lawmakers have gone too far in what is an inherently political process. Roberts wrote: ''How much is too much?' At what point does permissible partisanship become unconstitutional?' The current redistricting controversy arises from Trump's pressure on fellow Republicans to generate as many GOP-controlled districts as possible before the 2026 midterm elections for the US House of Representatives. Right now, the focus is on Texas where legislators broke from the usual cycle of post-census redistricting that happens every 10 years and suddenly proposed a new map intended to push several Democrats out of office and buttress the chances that Republicans keep their majority, now hanging by a thread, in Congress. The audacious Texas effort has prompted liberals to consider a counterattack in Democratic-controlled states such as California to create new maps that could boost their numbers. But politicians' effort to draw lines to their advantage have never been free of controversy. The paired cases before the justices six years ago involved extreme gerrymanders by Republicans in North Carolina and by Democrats in Maryland. Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote was crucial. A year earlier, Kavanaugh had succeeded Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had previously left the door open to federal court challenges to partisan gerrymanders. Justice Elena Kagan, taking the lead for dissenters, insisted workable standards existed and had been used by lower US court judges. 'For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation,' she wrote, pointing up the stakes. 'The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives,' Kagan added. She was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who remains on the bench, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020, and Stephen Breyer, who retired in 2022. Echoing a line from redistricting precedent that appears apt as Texas legislators divide voters for predetermined results, Kagan wrote that a core principle of government is 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.'
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
LA City Council bans N-word at public meetings, triggering legal threats
Watch your mouth! The Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to ban the use of the N-word and C-word at public meetings — triggering free speech backlash and the threat of a $400 million lawsuit. The controversial vote by the body allows council leadership to issue a warning for any use or variation of the slurs. Repeat offenders can be booted from the chamber and barred from future sessions. Advertisement Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who is black and introduced the measure, said the use of slurs during public comments has made residents hesitant to attend meetings. 3 The council chamber where a 14–0 vote Wednesday banned use of the N-word and C-word during meetings, citing years of disruptive outbursts. Los Angeles Times via Getty Images 'It is language that, anywhere outside this building where there aren't four armed guards, would get you hurt if you said these things in public,' Harris-Dawson told the Los Angeles Times earlier this year. Advertisement He added that public comment has become 'rank, cantankerous, and rude and demeaning and insulting' since Donald Trump's election in 2016, according to the LAist. The Wednesday ban is already drawing legal threats. Wayne Spindler, an attorney and longtime City Hall commenter, said Wednesday he intends to sue. 3 Critics of the new rule, including frequent City Hall speakers, claimed the city was infringing on free speech and promised legal challenges. Getty Images Advertisement 'I'm going to file my $400-million lawsuit that I already have prepared and ready to file,' Spindler said during public comment, adding he plans to read explicit Tupac Shakur lyrics until he's banned from a meeting. Spindler was arrested in 2016 after submitting a public comment card showing a burning cross, a man hanging from a tree and the phrase 'Herb = [N-word],' referring to then-Council President Herb Wesson. Prosecutors declined to bring charges. David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, warned the council's policy likely won't survive in court. 3 Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said offensive speech has surged since 2016, creating a chilling effect on civic engagement. Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Advertisement 'The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech because it disapproves of that speech,' Loy wrote in a letter to the City Council. The city has lost similar battles before. In 2014, it paid $215,000 to a black man who was removed from a meeting for wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and a T-shirt with the N-word. The new rule took effect immediately.
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Queen's ‘Garden of Hate' taking case to federal court, rips judge and ‘scurrilous' NY Post coverage
The fight over a community garden in Queens is getting thornier. The attorney for the anti-Israel leaders of Sunset Community Garden in Ridgewood withdrew their state lawsuit against the city and the Parks Department — to make a federal case out of the issue. Since last fall, Jewish Ridgewood residents haven't felt welcome at Sunset Community Garden, thanks to the garden group's pro-Palestinian rhetoric, which included a special section labeled 'Poppies for Palestine.' 4 Some local residents said they do not feel welcome in the community garden, whose leaders asked incoming members to pledge 'solidarity' with the people of Palestine. Instagram @sunsetgardenridgewood Incoming members are also made to pledge 'solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized people' of Palestine' by the garden's management. The Parks Department wanted the group out by June 6 for 'violat[ing] the terms of their license' with the 'unconstitutional wording' of their 'ideological litmus test' for membership, according to court documents. The group responded with a state lawsuit in early June to block the eviction, and The Post was in the courtroom when attorneys for both sides met in court this month. But Jonathan Wallace, the garden leaders' attorney, withdrew the state lawsuit Monday, and told the city he plans to refile the case in federal court, a source said. In a letter this week, the lawyer accused Judge Hasa Kingo of allowing the 'scurrilous' New York Post's coverage to guide his rulings in court. 'The plaintiffs in this case are a community group composed largely of trans people of color, many of whom are immigrants, and who share a powerfully-rooted moral opposition to the horrifying violence committed by a political entity, the nation-state Israel, against the people of Gaza,' the letter read. 4 Attorney Jonathan Wallace objected to coverage from The Post. Michael Nagle 4 The garden's leaders are fighting the city's efforts to oust them. Helayne Seidman 'We could not be further from the ideals and goals stated by Justices Holmes and Brandeis when the Post appears to be influencing outcomes in judicial proceedings,' he added. 'As an old white, proudly Jewish attorney (something that in a 43-year career I never thought until now I would need to mention) I like and am content to be associated with' the garden leaders, Wallace concluded in his letter to Kingo. Christina Wilkinson — a Ridgewood resident who worked to secure funding for the green space, but is now one of its most vocal critics — said the switch to federal court a 'stall tactic,' and believes 'Parks must now remove the violators and find a community partner that will make Sunset Garden an open and inclusive place for all.' 4 Members planting in the garden in June 2024. Instagram @sunsetgardenridgewood She added, 'You have to love the irony of an attorney arguing that the City violated his clients' First Amendment rights, then turning around and complaining about [a Post reporter] being present in the courtroom.' Wallace did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Parks Department refused to respond to requests for comment.
