First Vagabonds Church Of God v. City Of Orlando, 638 F.3d 756

Orlando enacted an ordinance restricting large-group feedings (25+ people) within the Greater Downtown Park District, requiring permits and limiting permittees to two per park per year.
The Greater Downtown Park District is a two-mile radius around City Hall; Lake Eola Park is a signature park within this district.
Orlando Food Not Bombs (OFNB) and First Vagabonds Church of God argued the ordinance burdens their expressive activities and violates the First Amendment.
The district court granted some summary judgments, then issued a final order upholding some claims and enjoining enforcement; the panel reversed in part, and the case was reheard en banc to address only the Free Speech issue as applied to OFNB.
The en banc court assumed, for argument, that OFNB’s feeding of the homeless is expressive conduct, but held the ordinance valid as a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction and as a reasonable regulation of expressive conduct under O’Brien and Clark; the injunction against enforcement was vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ordinance as applied to OFNB violates the Free Speech Clause	OFNB argues it has a First Amendment right to feed as often as it wishes	City asserts the ordinance is a neutral, reasonable regulation to spread burdens	No; ordinance is a valid time/place/manner restriction and regulation of expressive conduct
Whether Clark v. CnV controls the outcome	OFNB relies on expressive-speech protection for its feedings	Clark supports government interest in park management with limited restrictions	Yes; Clark supports upholding the ordinance as a reasonable restriction
Whether the ordinance is narrowly tailored and serves a substantial governmental interest	Ordinance fails to achieve free-speech goals without excessive burden	Ordinance furthers spreading burdens across parks and neighborhoods	Yes; satisfies O’Brien four-part test
Whether the district court erred by not applying Clark analysis	District court misapplied Clark or failed to engage with it	Clark is controlling authority supporting the ordinance	No; Clark analysis supports the result
Whether the ordinance’s scope is appropriately limited to the district and not a broad ban	Restriction is a broad constraint on speech activity	Restriction is narrowly tailored to park management within the district	Yes; within the delegated government power and geographic scope

Clark v. City of Des Moines, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) (assumed expressive conduct; upheld time/place/manner restriction in park context)
United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675 (1985) (incidental burdens on speech permissible if no greater than necessary to serve substantial government interest)