Restricting Frequency of Church Free Meal Services Violates RLUIPA

 In St. Timothy's Episcopal Church v. City of Brookings, (D OR, March 27, 2024), an Oregon federal district court held that a zoning ordinance that limits the number of days that a church can serve free meals to people in need violates the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. St. Timothy's has been offering free lunchtime meals since 2009 and sees this as fundamental to their Episcopalian faith. Most recently meals have been served three to four times per week. In 2021, the city amended its zoning code to require a conditional use permit for "benevolent meal services" in residential districts and limited such services to two times per week. Finding that the city has burdened the church's religious exercise without a compelling interest in violation of RLUIPA, the court said in part:

[P]rotecting the public welfare, maintaining peace and order, and preventing crime are all certainly compelling government interests in a broad, general sense. However, the City has not articulated how the specific provisions of the Ordinance that limit meal service to two days per week ... 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....

Here, the City has long permitted, and arguably even supported benevolent meal services at St. Timothy's, without limitation as to the number of days such meals could be provided. 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....

... [T]he City has not shown that it considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures.

4th Circuit: Inmate's Claim for Religious Diet Should Move Forward

In Pendleton v. Jividen, (4th Cir., March 20, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a West Virginia federal district court should not have dismissed a RLUIPA religious diet claim brought by an inmate who follows the Sufi Original Traditions of Islam. Those Traditions allow him to only eat fruit, vegetables and certain fish. The court said in part:

In 2014 ... prison officials introduced a new diet program for those with religious dietary restrictions. Under that program, a single “religious special diet” is served—one designed to meet the needs of all faiths by following the rules of the most diet-restrictive ones. With all forms of meat off the table, the diet uses soy as its primary protein source....

Although Pendleton’s religious beliefs do not forbid consumption of soy as such, the complaint alleges that Pendleton experiences vomiting, abdominal pain, constipation, and other digestive issues when he does so. And this, the complaint asserts, is of “religious significance” to Pendleton because his inability to properly digest soy renders such foods "Haram" for him....

Defendants insist that Pendleton could obtain a meat-free and soy-free diet by obtaining test results showing he has a medically significant allergy to soy. And, the defendants continue, because Pendleton has refused to submit to allergy testing ... he has not plausibly alleged a substantial burden on his religious practice. That argument fails too. Pendleton need not produce documentation of his alleged soy allergy to survive a motion to dismiss.... Even if Pendleton took an allergy test and that test was negative, it would not eliminate his religiously based objections to eating soy.  For that reason, Pendleton has plausibly alleged a substantial burden on his religious practices, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

Christian Food Ministry Sues to End City's Attempts to Close It Down

 Last week, a Yuma County, Arizona Baptist church filed suit in an Arizona federal district court challenging actions the city of San Luis has taken to close down the church's food distribution ministry which it has operated for 23 years. The complaint (full text) in Gethsemani Baptist Church v. City of San Luis, (D AZ, filed 3/13/2024), says that with the election of a new mayor in 2022, the city ended its prior support for the food ministry and used zoning rules to attempt to end its operations. The city contends that the growth of the church's Food Ministry has changed it sufficiently that it may no longer rely on its prior treatment as a legal non-conforming use. The church alleges that the city's actions violate RLUIPA, the Free Exercise Clause, and Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filling of the lawsuit.

Court Says Center's Food Distribution Is Likely a Religious Exercise Under RLUIPA

In Micah's Way v. City of Santa Ana, (CD CA, June 8, 2023), a California federal district court refused to dismiss a suit by a center that provides aid to impoverished and disabled individuals claiming that the city has violated its rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment by refusing to issue it a Certificate of Occupancy unless it agrees to stop providing food and beverages to its clients. While the center had operated for 5 years without a certificate of occupancy, the city began a concerted effort to get Micah's Way as well as a needle exchange program nearby to move out of the neighborhood after the city's mayor who lived nearby experienced a break-in at his home. The court held that Micah's Way plausibly alleged that its food distribution activities are a "religious exercise" under RLUIPA and that the city has substantially burdened that religious exercise. The court also concluded that plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause. Voice of OC reports on the decision.

Church Preschool Challenges California's Anti-Discrimination Rules for Food Program Participants

Suit was filed earlier this month in a California federal district court by a Christian church and its preschool challenging the state's agreement form that was required for participants in the state's Child and Adult Food Care Program. The complaint (full text) in Church of Compassion v. Bonta, (SD CA, filed 3/10/2023), alleges in part:

The new 2022 CDSS PSA required the Church and Dayspring to certify that their management of the CACFP Food Program will be “operated in compliance with all applicable civil rights laws and will implement all applicable non-discrimination regulations....

Because of the Church’s orthodox religious beliefs regarding human sexuality, it was unable to comply with the PSA when it submitted its application for the 2022-2023 year. Specifically, Dayspring signed the PSA statement, but deleted the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

The complaint alleges that the requirement violates plaintiffs' Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clause rights. National Center for Law & Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

8th Circuit: City Food Ordinance Did Not Violate Pastor's Free Speech Rights

In Redlich v. City of St. Louis, (8th Cir., Oct. 12, 2022), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a Christian pastor and his assistant challenging a city ordinance that required a permit to distribute potentially hazardous food. Plaintiffs had previously been cited for distributing bologna sandwiches to hungry people they encountered in St. Louis. They contended that as applied to them, the ordinance violated their free speech rights. The court held that even assuming plaintiffs' actions amounted to expressive conduct, the ordinance furthers a substantial governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest. It said in part:

Appellants would be required to pay a $50 fee for the permit at least two days in advance of their food-sharing activities and notify the City of both the time and place where the food would be distributed. These provisions ensure that health inspectors have an opportunity to determine whether the temporary food establishment is complying with the Ordinance.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Suit Over Content Of Subway Tuna Sandwiches Moves Forward

In a case that is important to those whose religious beliefs prohibit consumption of meat or pork products, a California federal district court in Amin v. Subway Restaurants, Inc., (ND CA, July 7, 2022), refused to dismiss a suit alleging that Subway's tuna sandwiches contain non-tuna products. As reported by Reuters, the suit, alleging fraud and violations of California's consumer protection statutes, contends that DNA analyses of tuna from Subway indicates it contains other fish species, chicken, pork and cattle. According to the court:

Subway argues that any non-tuna DNA discovered when testing its tuna products must come from the eggs in mayonnaise or from cross-contact with other Subway ingredients.... Although it is possible that Subway’s explanations are the correct ones, it is also possible that these allegations refer to ingredients that a reasonable consumer would not reasonably expect to find in a tuna product.

Suit Challenges Maine's Ban On Sunday Hunting

Suit was filed yesterday in a Maine state trial court challenging Maine's ban on Sunday hunting. The complaint (full text) in Parker v. Camuso, (ME Super. Ct., filed 4/27/2022),  contends that the Right To Food Amendment to Maine's constitution (Art. I, Sec. 25) adopted in 2021 invalidates the state's ban on Sunday hunting as applied to individuals who hunt on Sundays to harvest food for themselves and their families. The complaint calls the Sunday hunting ban "a historical and religious anachronism."  Portland Press Herald reports on the lawsuit.

Church Challenges City's Limits On Its Offering Meals To Homeless

Suit was filed last week in an Oregon federal district court by a church challenging a city's ordinance that limits it from offering free meals to the needy more than two days per week.  The complaint (full text) in  St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church v. City of Brookings, (D OR, filed 1/28/2022), says that the new limits were imposed after city residents complained of the homeless gathering around the church. It contends that the restrictions violate RLUIPA as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments, saying in part:

Plaintiffs believe that God and scripture have directed them to continue serving their community by offering St. Timothy’s meal program more than two days per week to ensure that people in need can have access to at least one hot, nutritious meal every day of the week.

... The City’s land use and zoning regulations ... deny and restrict, and will deny and restrict, Plaintiffs’ religious use of St. Timothy’s’ property, is not supported by a compelling government interest, and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling governmental interest.

Reason reports on the lawsuit.

Religious Group's Distribution of Vegan Food May Be Expressive Conduct

In Krishna Lunch of Southern California, Inc. v. Gordon, (9th Cir., Jan. 13, 2020), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Krishna Lunch had plausibly pleaded that its distribution of sanctified vegan and vegetarian food (prasada) is protected expressive conduct under the 1st Amendment. The court explained:

While distributing prasada, the organization plans on chanting the names of God and other devotional hymns and songs, speaking with interested students and others of the University of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”) community, distributing religious literature, and displaying signs depicting reincarnation, animal protectionism, and other topics related to its followers’ beliefs. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Krishna Lunch, we can infer that in these circumstances an onlooker would understand the distribution of food “to be communicative.”

However the court dismissed the organization's free exercise claim, finding that UCLA's four-times-per-year policy is neutral and generally applicable, and saying:

Krishna Lunch has not negated every conceivable basis that might support the policy.

Suit Challenges Restrictions On Sharing Food With the Hungry

A suit was filed yesterday in a Missouri federal district court claiming that St. Louis' Temporary Food Service Ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to restrict the non-commercial sharing of food with the hungry.  The complaint (full text) in Redlich v. City of  St. Louis, (ED MO, filed 1/8/2019) pits a pastor and another Christian man who believe they have a religious obligation to feed the hungry against city enforcement officials.  It alleges in part:

Plaintiffs contend that as applied to them and to others similarly situated the Temporary Food Service Ordinance unconstitutionally and unlawfully restricts their free exercise of religion, their freedom of expression, their freedom of association, their rights of conscience, and denies them equal protection of the laws.

St. Louis Public Radio reports on the lawsuit.

Free Exercise Defense To Food and Drug Act Indictment Rejected

In United States v. Girod, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82365 (ED KY, June 24, 2016), a Kentucky federal district court refused to dismiss an indictment under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act against defendant who claimed that his religious faith rejects FDA testing.  Defendant was charged with operating an establishment that manufactured and marketed products for the treatment of skin disorders, cancer, sinus infections, and other ailments, without required registration with the FDA. (See opinion at 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81047, June 22, 2016). The court held that defendant did not properly raise his free exercise objection, but that even if he had he had not shown that the Act imposes a substantial burden on his exercise of religion.