550 F.Supp.3d 734
E.D. Mo.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (two Christian street ministers from New Life Evangelical Center) were cited after distributing bologna sandwiches to homeless persons without a City temporary food permit under St. Louis Ordinance No. 68597 (later amended and ultimately replaced by 2021 Ordinance No. 71324).
- The Ordinance adopts the National Food Code and requires temporary permits, equipment, and sometimes notice; an amendment created a reduced-fee Charitable Feeding Temporary Food Permit and removed a 14-day limit for charitable operations.
- Plaintiffs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (free exercise, free speech, equal protection/association) and two Missouri law claims (state rights of conscience and Missouri RFRA).
- The City moved for summary judgment on all counts; Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on Counts I, II, and V. The court considered standing/mootness given subsequent ordinance changes and found a credible threat of enforcement remained.
- The court held (1) no Free Exercise violation under Smith (applied rational-basis review because the law is neutral and generally applicable); (2) no Free Speech violation (Ordinance survives intermediate O'Brien review); (3) no Equal Protection/association violation; (4) hybrid-rights theory not available because Plaintiffs lacked an independently viable separate constitutional claim; (5) the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Mootness | Plaintiffs intend to continue food ministry and face a credible threat of enforcement despite ordinance amendments | City pointed to Ordinance amendments and later replacement, arguing prior claims may be moot | Court found credible threat remains; as-applied challenge not moot (claims re: prior ordinances addressed on prior-record basis) |
| Free Exercise (substantial burden / neutrality) | Ordinance substantially burdens their religious obligation to feed the hungry (cost/logistics, limits on locations/dates) | Ordinance is neutral, generally applicable, and any burdens are financial/logistical (not substantial); charitable permit reduces burden | No substantial burden shown; neutral and generally applicable law survives rational-basis review; Free Exercise claim dismissed |
| Free Speech / Expressive Conduct | Sharing food is expressive conduct communicating God’s love; Ordinance suppresses that expression and must face strict scrutiny (hybrid-rights) or fail O'Brien | Distribution of food is non-expressive or only incidentally expressive; law is content-neutral and furthers public health; O'Brien satisfied | Court found Plaintiffs’ speech claim fails (Ordinance is content-neutral and meets O'Brien intermediate scrutiny); summary judgment for City on speech claim |
| Equal Protection / Freedom of Association | City selectively enforces against those feeding homeless, penalizing association with homeless and denying homeless equal choice | Ordinance applies to potentially hazardous food generally; it does not prevent association or punish associating with homeless | Plaintiffs failed to show differential treatment that infringes a fundamental associational right; equal protection/association claim dismissed |
| Hybrid Rights & State Law (MRFRA / Article I §5) | Plaintiffs sought strict scrutiny via hybrid-rights (speech + exercise) and relief under Missouri RFRA/rights of conscience | City argued no independent constitutional claim to form a hybrid claim; state claims are for state court | Court refused to apply hybrid-rights (no independently viable separate claim); federal counts I–III dismissed with prejudice; state claims dismissed without prejudice to state adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws need only rational-basis review under Free Exercise Clause)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws targeting religiously motivated conduct are not neutral)
- United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for regulation of conduct that incidentally burdens expression)
- Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2018) (food-sharing can amount to expressive conduct)
- Telescope Media Group v. Lucero, 936 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2019) (recognition of hybrid-rights where speech and free-exercise claims are intertwined)
- Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2008) (Eighth Circuit discussion of hybrid-rights and strict scrutiny)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (describes rational-basis presumption for non-suspect classifications)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (discusses intermediary scrutiny principles and narrow-tailoring standards in speech contexts)