Courts

Church group sues Phoenix over parks ordinance limiting homeless aid

The ordinance, which goes into effect today, requires permits to distribute food or provide medical treatment in city parks.
kate gallego
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego.

Morgan Fischer

Carbonatix Pre-Player Loader

Audio By Carbonatix

In May, when the Phoenix City Council passed a divisive new parks ordinance prohibiting unpermitted food distribution and medical treatment in city parks, advocates who work with unhoused people predicted lawsuits.

This week, that prediction panned out.

On Tuesday, a Christian Orthodox church group that feeds homeless people in a north Phoenix park once a week filed a federal lawsuit against the city over the new ordinance. St. Herman’s Table, a ministry of Exaltation of the Holy Cross Orthodox Church, and founder and minister Lance Brace are seeking a temporary restraining order against the city to prevent it from enforcing the new ordinance. It argued that the ordinance, which goes into effect today, violates the First Amendment by preventing the group from fulfilling its religious obligations of “almsgiving and evangelism.”

According to the complaint, every Thursday, Brace and a handful of volunteers — mostly church board members — serve a free buffet-style meal and give away water, Bibles and hygiene products to approximately 12 to 25 homeless people in Cave Creek Park at Cactus Road.

GET MORE COVERAGE LIKE THIS

Sign up for the This Week’s Top Stories newsletter to get the latest stories delivered to your inbox

Editor's Picks

“Ultimately, St. Herman’s goal is to introduce Jesus Christ to the people it serves,” the complaint says. “But now, Mr. Brace and St. Herman’s face criminalization for their evangelism.”

A spokesperson for Provident Law, the firm representing the plaintiffs, did not respond to a request for comment. In an emailed statement, Phoenix spokesperson Ashley Patton wrote: “The City of Phoenix has received a copy of the federal lawsuit and intends to defend against it. We believe our ordinance is lawful. Beyond that, we are unable to provide further comment on pending litigation.”

The ordinance, which passed the council on May 6 and is scheduled to take effect June 5, requires people and organizations looking to distribute food or provide medical care in city parks to apply for a permit. However, the ordinance allows for only two permits per approved park per month. The ordinance also makes it a misdemeanor to provide medical care or food in city parks without a permit and bans medical care with needles and needle exchange programs altogether. 

The city council passed the ordinance in response to what the city said was a growing amount of disorder and danger in city parks because of these services, citing trash, used needles and other medical supplies left behind after distributions. Opponents of the ordinance fought fiercely against its passage, saying that the detritus was the fault of a few bad actors. They argued that the many church groups, organizations and individuals who brought food and medical care to city parks filled a gap in services. Ending their work would do more harm than good, they said, endangering the people who rely on them and ultimately putting more cost and burden on the government.

Related

a table set up with food by food not bombs phoenix
Many organizations that provide food to the homeless, including Food Not Bombs PHX, opposed the new Phoenix parks ordinance.

Food Not Bombs Phoenix

A religious discrimination argument

In its lawsuit, St. Herman’s Table makes a similar argument. Its aid is vital to the people it serves, the complaint argues. At least two of the group’s regulars live near the park and lack transportation to reach other parks should St. Herman’s Table’s distribution end. One of them, a disabled individual, relies heavily on St. Herman’s for food.

“He has informed Mr. Brace that sometimes the meal that St. Herman’s provides is the only complete meal he has received that week,” the complaint reads.

Brace’s lawyers noted that St. Herman’s Table does not provide medical care or needles. The group’s volunteers clean up before and after, leaving no trash behind. As far as Brace knows, there’s never been any complaints about the Thursday evening food distributions, nor has St. Herman’s Table ever been cited by the city for crowd size, littering or noise. 

In an argument central to the lawsuit, St. Herman’s Table points out that’s not the case for gatherings — many of them non-religious in nature — that are exempted from the new ordinance.

Related

“If the City were truly committed to addressing park orderliness and cleanliness, it would not exempt birthday parties, weddings and social gatherings from the Ordinance,” the complaint reads.

St. Herman’s Table also argued that the permitting process would present an impossible hurdle. The ordinance requires applications to be completed months in advance and mandates that applicants include proof that anyone serving food has a food handler’s certification. “St. Herman’s does not know months in advance which of its volunteers will be available,” the lawsuit says.

Brace will continue St. Herman’s Table even with the ordinance, the complaint said. However, his wife and children will no longer join him.  

“They have made this decision in case Mr. Brace is cited or arrested while fulfilling his almsgiving,” the complaint reads, “so that their children will not be a witness to that.”

The lawsuit accuses the city of violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments by placing prior restraint on the right to practice religion and by restricting access to public forums for religious speech. The lawsuit also asserts that the ordinance is “unconstitutionally vague,” lacking sufficient definition of what is and isn’t allowed and leaving too much wiggle room in how it can be enforced.

St. Herman’s Table is asking the court to declare that the ordinance and the city have violated the First Amendment in general and that they have specifically violated the plaintiffs’ rights. It also seeks to have the court prohibit the city from enforcing the ordinance against Brace and the organization.

According to the complaint, Brace was a vocal opponent of the ordinance while it was being discussed, testifying at a community meeting and before the city council about the issue. At one point, he even emailed deputy city manager Cynthia Aguilar, who invited him to reach out, but he did not get a response. His lawyer also sent a letter to the city asking them to reject the ordinance.

“If this ordinance passes, it will not end acts of charity,” he said in his public comments, which were included as a case exhibit. “It will only place those acts in conflict with the law.”

Loading latest posts...