The city of Phoenix, Arizona, is facing blowback after passing an ordinance that bans groups from hosting free food events and medical aid for the homeless in city parks.
A federal lawsuit filed in June claims the ordinance violates an Orthodox Christian ministry's religious freedom and free speech rights because free food events are part of the group's religious exercise.
The lawsuit raises questions about when sharing food counts as expression protected by the First Amendment. It also fuels a contentious debate over how cities should respond to homelessness in public spaces.
What Phoenix's ordinance banning free food for the public in parks does
Phoenix's new ordinance, which was passed in early May and took effect in early June, makes it a misdemeanor for groups to host feeding and medical events in city parks without first securing a permit. The measure bans needle-exchange events and sets limits on where, how often and the types of food and health-related services that organizations can provide to the unhoused at city parks. It requires groups to provide insurance and indemnification.
What Christian group sued Phoenix over the food ban, and why?
Lance Brace, founder of St. Herman's Table, a ministry of Exaltation of the Holy Cross Orthodox Church, said the city's new ordinance criminalizes his evangelism and makes it impossible for him to provide food, water, Bibles and small hygiene products to unhoused people in city parks.
The ministry provides those items "to introduce Jesus Christ to the people it serves," the complaint says.
The complaint claims the ordinance unconstitutionally treats religious activity differently than secular activity. It points to the ordinance's language targeting groups with "charitable or similar humanitarian proposes" but exempting from its permitting requirements "family events such as celebrations, weddings, meals, or reunions or informal gatherings of family or family friends."
What is Phoenix's response to the food and medical aid ban lawsuit?
City officials said well-intentioned people feeding the homeless at parks displaced other park users, leading to litter, open drug use, damage to city property, crowds and noise.
Attorneys for Phoenix argued that Brace and the ministry's food distribution was more conduct than expression, and therefore not protected by the First Amendment.
Even if it were protected expression, they argued, "nothing in the Ordinance draws a line between secular and religious activity.” Instead, they said the distinction was between public and private gatherings.
The attorneys wrote that the church group could continue providing water and Bibles. The group could even host a private event, providing food for parishioners, and not have to apply for a permit, the attorneys wrote.
What happens next in the religious freedom lawsuit against Phoenix?
The federal lawsuit asked the court to temporarily restrain the city from enforcing the rule and ultimately declare the ordinance unconstitutional and prohibit Phoenix from enforcing it.
So far, a judge has issued a 14-day restraining order that prevents Phoenix for enforcing the ordinance against Brace and St. Herman's Table through June 24; however, that means the city is free to enforce the ordinance against other groups.
Potential next developments could include a preliminary injunction that lasts through litigation, or a permanent injunction or trial. It's unclear what an injunction would include. Such a decision from the judge could continue to ban city enforcement against Brace and the ministry, or it could ban enforcement of certain parts of the ordinance.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic