In Barroca v. Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District, (ND CA, Feb. 23, 2026), a California federal district court dismissed all but a selective prosecution claim in a suit involving activities at a public park in Hayward, California. Plaintiff, a lover of cats, regularly fed feral and neighborhood cats in the park in violation of an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of wild or feral animals. He also regularly, to little avail, asked authorities to enforce against dog owners the ordinance requiring dogs in the park to be on leashes. Plaintiff sued the park district and park rangers alleging failure to perform mandatory duties under California law and violations of the Fourteenth, Fourth, and First Amendment.
One of plaintiff's claims was that the no-feeding ordinance violated his 1st Amendment free-exercise rights. In dismissing that claim, the court said in part:
Plaintiff alleges that under his Catholic faith and the teachings of St. Francis of Assisi, he believes he has “a duty to God to take care of and love all of God’s animals.” ... Due to these religious beliefs, Plaintiff “takes care of, feeds, shelters, provides medical needs, spay and neuters, play, love, and protect these cats and all of God’s animals.” ... Plaintiff has alleged that this park ordinance interferes with his ability to feed cats within Meek Park, thus burdening his religious duty to take care of animals, specifically, the cats that frequent Meek Park.
HARD Ordinance 19(b) is neutral and generally applicable. Any burden it places on Plaintiff’s ability to exercise his religious beliefs in caring for animals is incidental. Since the law is neutral and generally applicable, Plaintiff must show that it is not rationally related to any conceivable legitimate government purpose. But there are many potential legitimate bases for the rule: for example, feeding wild or feral animals attracts them to the park, increasing the risk of conflict with parkgoers and their pets, and the spread of disease. Since the rule has a conceivable legitimate basis, Plaintiff’s free exercise claim fails.
Various other claims against the park district and park rangers were also dismissed.
