Ban on Feeding Feral Animals Did Not Violate Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

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.

Court In India Says Elephant's Welfare Takes Precedence Over Its Use in Religious Rites

In  Bhattarak v. Union of India, (Bombay High Ct., July 16, 2025), a 3-judge panel of the High Court of Bombay in India upheld an order issued by Indian officials to a Trust operated by a Jain religious organization requiring the transfer of an elephant owned by the Trust to the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust, an elephant care center. Petitioner contended, among other things, that the elephant was used for Jain religious ceremonies. The court said in part:

Before we part, we deem it appropriate to record that we have considered and chosen the survival of the elephant and its right to quality life, over and above the rights of men to use the elephant for religious rites.  We have no doubt that the Petitioner-Math may have had no deliberate intent to cause injury to the elephant however, in the given circumstances of conflict between the rights of an elephant and the rights of Petitioner-Math to use the elephant in the discharge of its religious activities, priority must be given to the elephant’s welfare. The Court has duty under the doctrine parens patriae to secure the rights of the voiceless and hapless Mahadevi.  We cannot but reminisce the words of Lawrence Anthony in his book ‘The Elephant Whisperer’, 

“But perhaps the most important lesson I learned is that there are no walls between humans and the elephants except those that we put up ourselves, and that until we allow not only elephants, but all living creatures their place in the sun, we can never be whole ourselves.” 

Live Law reports on the decision.