City Union Mission, Inc. v. Mike Sharp, 36 F.4th 810

Background

City Union Mission (Kansas City nonprofit) operates shelters and a religious rehabilitation program; two of its properties lie within 500 feet of Margaret Kemp Park, which contains playground equipment.
Missouri law (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.150) forbids certain convicted sex offenders from "knowingly be[ing] present in or loiter[ing]" within 500 feet of public parks with playground equipment; some Mission guests are such Affected Persons.
In 2016 the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office initially took an expansive enforcement position, then narrowed enforcement to the 500-foot zone; City Union Mission alleged it was forced to restrict services, reassign staff, post warnings, and host sweeps.
City Union Mission sued the County, the Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Mike Sharp (official and individual capacity) raising First Amendment, RLUIPA, Missouri RFRA, vagueness, and state-constitutional claims (12 claims against the County and one individual-capacity claim against Sharp).
The State intervened and obtained dismissal of the County claims; the district court then granted summary judgment to Sheriff Sharp on qualified immunity for the individual-capacity First Amendment claim.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed: injunctive claims were moot (County and State disclaimed enforcement; Sharp resigned), City Union Mission failed to plead that Affected Persons were "loitering," and Sheriff Sharp was entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted right was not clearly established.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City Union Mission may obtain injunctive relief and challenge § 566.150 as applied when defendants no longer enforce the statute as to Mission services	Mission argued the statute as interpreted chilled and burdened its religious ministry and services to Affected Persons and sought declaratory and injunctive relief	County & State represented they will not enforce the statute against Mission’s religious services; Sheriff Sharp resigned, removing the primary enforcement actor	Injunctive claims moot — dismissal affirmed because defendants disclaimed enforcement and Sharp left office; relief would be advisory
Whether City Union Mission adequately pleaded an as-applied challenge to § 566.150’s loitering prohibition	Mission argued enforcement deterred services and that legal precedent protected religious activity and noncriminal loitering	Defendants argued Mission expressly disavowed that Affected Persons were "loitering", so the statute as written did not apply; pleading insufficient under Iqbal/Twombly	Dismissal affirmed: complaint failed to allege facts permitting inference that Affected Persons were loitering, so as-applied challenge failed
Whether Sheriff Sharp is entitled to qualified immunity on Mission’s individual-capacity First Amendment claim	Mission contended it had a clearly established right to provide religious services to Affected Persons within 500 feet of the park	Sharp argued no clearly established law required officers to allow such services in the 500-foot buffer; application required line-drawing amid competing interests	Summary judgment for Sharp affirmed: even assuming a constitutional violation, the right was not clearly established in 2016, so qualified immunity applies

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required to survive dismissal)
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) (invalidating vague loitering statutes)
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) (plurality opinion striking down loitering law for vagueness concerns)
Sause v. Bauer, 138 S. Ct. 2561 (2018) (First Amendment arrest/retaliation context)
Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) (probable-cause/First Amendment interplay)
Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914 (8th Cir. 2021) (qualified-immunity standard — clearly established prong)
Nord v. Walsh Cnty., 757 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2014) (qualified immunity framework)
Thurmond v. Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020) (requiring controlling case or consensus to clearly establish law)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (mootness/voluntary cessation and likelihood of recurrence)
Fields v. City of Omaha, 810 F.2d 830 (8th Cir. 1987) (discussing constitutional protections for noncriminal loitering)