BROOKINGS, Ore. (CN) — A federal judge in Oregon ruled in favor of a church in its lawsuit against the city of Brookings Wednesday, finding that a city ordinance limiting how often the church could feed homeless people was unconstitutional.
In October 2021 the Brookings City Council established an ordinance banning churches in residential areas from serving meals to the community without a permit and prohibited churches from providing more than two free meals a week.
Brookings community members filed a petition against St. Timothy’s Church Episcopal Church, claiming that homeless people camped at the church and the surrounding areas, bringing crime to the area.
After the ordinance was implemented, St. Timothy’s sued the Brookings, claiming the ordinance violates its rights to freely practice its religious teachings to feed and help the poor.
Last April, the city notified the church that it would be fined $720 per day if it continued to feed and offer social services to homeless people. The city pushed back, but the city council denied its appeal in December.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke wrote in his 22-page opinion that the city cannot impose any land use regulation, such as the ordinance, that makes it difficult for the church to freely practice its religion. He noted that feeding the hungry is a central tenet of many Christian religions and there is no reason to doubt that St. Timothy’s is sincere about its beliefs to help people in need.
“Here, it is undisputed that St. Timothy's either provides or hosts a benevolent meal service three to four times per week and that, in the past, St. Timothy's has provided a benevolent meal service up to six times per week. The clergy and the members of St. Timothy's have provided food to the hungry for over a decade, and they believe it is a central tenet of their faith to do so,” Clarke wrote. “By limiting the number of days per week that St. Timothy's can provide benevolent meal service, the ordinance forces Plaintiffs to choose between acting in accordance with their faith or facing a fine of $720 per day. The ordinance thus puts ‘substantial pressure’ on ‘plaintiffs ‘to modify their behavior and to violate their beliefs.’”
Clarke said that the city had failed to provide any “compelling government interest” that would be served by limiting the number of days that St. Timothy’s can feed people.
“The city has not articulated how the specific provisions of the ordinance that limit meal service to two days per week, or even three days per week if the amendment to the ordinance is enacted, serve to protect public welfare, maintain peace and order, or prevent crime in practical application. The court can find no logical, causal relationship between the limitation and these interests,” Clarke wrote.
The city argued that the ordinance was “permissive,” in that without it, St. Timothy’s would not be allowed to serve meals at all since it isn’t a restaurant. Clarke rejected that theory, writing that the city allowed the church to serve meals for over a decade without stepping in, and did not move to restrict the number of days that meal services can be provided at any other non-restaurants in the area, such as golf courses or bed and breakfasts.
“If the other non-single-family residential uses can serve meals unrestricted, why not a church? Thus, the idea that the ordinance's limitation is permissive instead of restrictive defies any stretch of the imagination,” Clarke wrote.
The judge continued that the city’s concerns about crime “ring hollow” when it had allowed the church to serve meals for years before suddenly springing into action.
“This undisputed fact is fatal to their argument that the ordinance's restrictions are intended to promote public welfare, peace, and order, and to deter crime,” Clarke wrote.
In his conclusion, the judge chided the city for enacting the ordinance, and said that the city is fortunate that St. Timothy’s is there to help lift up the community.
“Consistent with their faith, and with the city's full awareness, St. Timothy's has cared for vulnerable people in the community for decades, including during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic when there were few, if any, other accessible resources in the area,” Clarke wrote. “The clergy and the congregation at St. Timothy's have shown that they have been prepared to work with the city to care for those in need, and at the same time preserve the livability of the area for their neighbors by cooperating with law enforcement when necessary. The homeless are not ‘vagrants,’ but are citizens in need. This is a time for collaboration, not ill-conceived ordinances that restrict care and resources for vulnerable people in our communities.”
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Practicing in prison April 12, 2024 -
