Trial Begins In Palm Beach Church's Attempt To Keep Open As Homeless Shelter

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports on testimony in yesterday's the trial of a civil lawsuit filed by Palm Beach County's Westgate Tabernacle Church that is fighting county efforts to close down its operations as a homeless shelter. (See prior posting.) Westgate claims that the county is violating its religious freedom when it interferes with its housing the homeless. County Commissioners disagreed in their testimony as to whether Palm Beach County currently has sufficient shelter spaces for the homeless. Many of the homeless people served by Westgate attended the trial.

UPDATE: Saturday's South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that the jury in the state court trial has returned a verdict, finding that the county did not interfere with Westgate Tabernacle Church's religious freedom to shelter the homeless. It did, however, find that a substantial burden was placed on the religious exercise of Bishop Avis Hill, but that the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was not violated because the regulations were the least restrictive means to insure public safety. Rev. Alan Clapsaddle and Westgate's attorney Barry Silver said they would seek a new trial or would appeal on the grounds that the court misinterpreted provisions of RLUIPA and Florida's RFRA.

Texas AG Sues Church-Run Homeless Center Alleging It Has Become a Public Nuisance

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton this week filed a lawsuit in state court against a church-run homeless center that receives over $1 million in funding from the city of Austin. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Sunrise Community Church, Inc. d/b/a Sunrise Homeless Navigation Center, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 11/26/2024), alleges that the homeless shelter's operations constitute a statutory common nuisance and a common law public nuisance. The complaint says in part:

In South Austin, a once peaceful neighborhood has been transformed by homeless drug addicts, convicted criminals, and registered sex offenders. These people do drugs in sight of children, publicly fornicate next to an elementary school, menace residents with machetes, urinate and defecate on public grounds, and generally terrorize the surrounding community....

The state asks for injunctions closing the homeless center for one year.  It also asks that the center be prohibited from operating within 1,000 feet of any school playground or youth center and from operating in any location "in a manner that frequently attracts patrons whose conduct violates the rights of neighborhood residents, school children, businesses, and the general public to peacefully use and enjoy the surrounding area."

Attorney General Paxton issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Austin American- Statesman reports on the lawsuit.

Opinion Filed Supporting Injunction Against Public Feeding In Parks

As previously reported, last month a Pennsylvania federal district judge, from the bench, issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of Philadelphia's new ordinance that bans public feeding of groups of more than 3 people in any city park.  The ordinance is part of the city's efforts to close down an established program by Philadelphia churches to feed the homeless in city parks, and move the food program to indoor facilities. The court has now filed extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the issuance of the temporary injunction.  In Chosen 300 Ministries v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, Aug. 9, 2012), the court concluded that the churches' food-sharing program is an exercise of religion under the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act and that the new regulation places a substantial burden on that exercise of religion.  It added:

Defendants argue that because the ban "imposes no restrictions upon praying or preaching or reading the Gospel or engaging with the homeless in [Fairmount Park]," the ban does not burden plaintiffs’ free exercise.... Essentially, defendants have assumed the authority to ascribe some of plaintiffs’ religious activities more religious significance than others, irrespective of the significance that plaintiffs themselves ascribe to their own religious activities.

The court also found that the regulation is not the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest.  The court said:

There is some evidence that the true purpose behind the ban is to move plaintiffs' activities away from the many cultural attractions along the Parkway in an effort to hide the City’s homeless population away from tourist eyes. Defendants vehemently deny this and do not attempt to defend the ban on this ground. Nor could they, as discriminating against unpopular groups is not a legitimate government purpose, let alone a compelling one..... [D]efendants have failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the ban is the least restrictive means of furthering their objectives of ending homelessness, feeding the homeless indoors, providing social services to the homeless, increasing the dignity of the homeless, or reducing the trash burden along the Parkway.

Minister In Battle With Pennsylvania Town Over Use of Church For Homeless

Today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the battle in Brookville, Pennsylvania between the First Apostles Doctrine Church and zoning authorities. The church's minister, Rev. Jack L. Wisor, wants to use the church as a homeless shelter, saying providing shelter to "guests" is part of its ministry. However borough solicitor Stephen French says that homeless shelters are not permitted in areas zoned commercial where the 111 year old church is located. Rev. Wisor has already been fined $500 for allowing three homeless men to live in the church's parsonage. He has appealed to the Jefferson County Common Pleas Court. Wisor also objects to a code enforcement raid earlier this month which he alleges desecrated the church sanctuary. Borough solicitor French denies the allegations and says Wisor has told him that he is "going to hell" for making people homeless.

9th Circuit Rules In Favor of Church's Homeless Ministry

In Harbor Missionary Church Corp. v. City of San Buena Ventura, (9th Cir., March 14, 2016), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to issue a preliminary injunction to allow a church to continue to operate its homeless ministry from the same site as its church building. The city had denied a conditional use permit to the church. The appeals court said in part:

The Church asserts that its religion calls for it “to provide for both spiritual and temporal needs together.” The district court erred by questioning the validity of the Church’s religious beliefs and by determining that its homeless ministry could be divided piecemeal when the Church insisted on the importance of keeping its homeless ministry as a whole at the same location....

The district court abused its discretion when it concluded, without analysis, that a complete denial of the conditional use permit was the least restrictive means by which the City could further its compelling interest in public safety. On remand, the district court should ... detail why the conditional use permit recommended by the City’s staff would or would not sufficiently protect the neighborhood from any negative effects shown to be the result of the Church’s ministry to the homeless.

Requirement for Church to Obtain Permit Before Hosting Homeless Encampment Is Upheld

In Miller v. City of Burien, (WD WA, Feb. 3, 2025), a Washington federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Methodist church challenging the city's requirement that the church apply for and obtain a temporary use permit before it could host a homeless encampment on its property. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that requiring a permit violated its rights under RLUIPA as well as its free speech and free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment. The court said in part:

The parties concede that caring for unhoused individuals is an “exercise of religion” for purposes of RLUIPA. However, the parties dispute whether requiring the Church to apply for a temporary use permit before it is allowed to host a homeless encampment constitutes “imposing a ‘substantial burden’ on religious exercise” under the statute. It is important to note that this is not a denial of application case; rather, the question here is whether the City can require the Church to submit a permit application.... 

Here, the Church did not apply for a permit, the City did not deny the permit application, and the City did not deny the Church’s the right to host a homeless encampment—indeed, the City supported the Church’s endeavor. However, the City did require that the Church fill out a simple two-page application so that the City could ensure that the health and safety of the neighborhood residents, as well as the encampment occupants, was accounted for. Such minimum inconvenience does not constitute a substantial burden on the Church for purposes of RLUIPA. ...

 ... [T]he Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulation impacts speech. As such, its prior restraint facial challenge fails as a matter of law and must be dismissed....

... [Z]oning laws that permit some individualized assessment for variances remain “generally applicable” so long as the laws are motivated by secular purposes and impact equally all landowners seeking the variances. That, of course, is the case here. No landowner—secular or religious—is permitted to host a homeless encampment within a multi-family zone without a permit.... Nor has the Church alleged that Burien’s regulatory scheme is religiously motivated.... Therefore, because the Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulatory scheme was not neutral and not generally applicable, it has failed to state a free exercise claim under the First Amendment.

Dallas Eases Restrictions On Feeding of Homeless; Settles Lawsuit

Last year, a Texas federal district court held that Dallas'  Food Establishment Ordinance imposing strict requirements on organizations feeding the homeless violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (See prior posting.) On Wednesday Dallas City Council, as part of a  settlement of the lawsuit, adopted amendments lightening the burdens on those feeding the homeless.  As reported by Think Progress:

The original Dallas ordinance required charities that wished to feed the homeless to provide bathrooms and running water, effectively restricting the groups to a handful of sites rather than allowing them to go to where the need was greatest. It also required them to register with the city no matter how large or small their food program might be, with the threat of a $2,000 fine for violators.....

Instead of running water and hand-washing facilities, street feeding programs may now use hand sanitizer. They only need to notify the city if they plan to serve more than 75 people, and must abide by some basic food safety guidelines.

According to the Dallas Morning News, the city also voted to pay a total of $250,000 for damages and attorneys fees to to Big Hart Ministries Association and Rip Parker Memorial Homeless Ministry.

Court Says City's Restrictions On Feeding Homeless Violate Religious Freedom

In Big Hart Ministries Assoc., Inc. v. City of Dallas, (ND TX, March 25, 2013), a Texas federal district court held that under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act the criteria in Dallas' Food Establishment Ordinance that must be met by organizations feeding the homeless violate the religious exercise rights of two organizations that feed and minister to the unsheltered homeless population in Dallas. The court concluded that the city had not shown a compelling interest in restricting feeding of the homeless by religious institutions, despite the city's argument that the organizations are thwarting the city's attempt to get the homeless off the streets and into clinics or shelters. Dallas News reports on the decision.

Some Defendants Dismissed From Suit On Hosting Religious Services At Homeless Shelter

In Caractor v. City of New York Department of Homeless Services, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134623 (SD NY, Nov. 22, 2011), plaintiff, a bishop in the Discovered Being Ministry, sought to hold religious services at a housing facility for the homeless shortly after he and his family received shelter there. The Department of Homeless Services denied his request and he sued. The court now granted motions of certain of the defendants to dismiss them because they were not personally involved in any of the alleged violations of plaintiff's free exercise or free speech rights.

Faith Group Sues Over California Limits On Its Use of Park To Feed Homeless

In Orange County, California, an interfaith religious group, Welcome INN (Interfaith Needs Network), has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state's limits on public assemblies and demonstrations in state parks. According to a press release by the ACLU, when the group attempted to set up supplies in a Doheny State Park picnic area in order to offer a meal to the homeless, a park ranger told them to disperse, citing California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sec. 4321 that requires permission of the Department of Parks and Recreation in order to hold an assembly there. This action came after the group, on two previous days, used the park to conduct a prayer, serve donated food to about 20 homeless people, distribute Bibles and refer those who requested it to local social service agencies. The complaint (full text) in Welcome INN, Inc. v. Coleman, (CD CA, filed 5/7/08) alleges that the permit provision is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech in a traditional public forum, and its enforcement against the group infringes their speech, associational and free exercise rights.

Today's Los Angeles Times, reporting on the case, quotes ACLU attorney Hector Villagra who compares the gathering of homeless at the state beach to picnics and barbecues that are allowed there. Park officials say this is different because it is an organized feeding event that requires a special use permit, like all other formal gatherings.

Town Sued Over Zoning Ban Preventing Church From Sheltering Homeless

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Pennsylvania ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court yesterday on behalf of First Apostles Doctrine Church of Brookville, Pennsylvania. The church and its pastor, Rev. Jack L. Wisor, want to use the church as a homeless shelter, saying providing shelter to "guests" is part of its ministry. In August, Wisor was fined $500 for zoning violations stemming from his allowing three homeless men to live in the church's parsonage. (See prior posting.) The lawsuit alleges that the zoning enforcement violates the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause, the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, RLUIPA and Pennsylvania's Religious Freedom Protection Act.

UPDATE: The day after the lawsuit was filed, the parties reached a settlement agreement and on Wednesday the court issued an order that permits the church to resume housing up to eight homeless people and two staff members. (York (PA) Daily Record).

Suit Challenges City's Forcing of Homeless Into Faith-Based Shelters

In Amarillo, Texas, an advocate for the homeless has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city's attempts to move homeless individuals from a tent city known as Christ Church Camp of New Beginnings to traditional homeless shelters.  The complaint (full text) in Donelson v. City of Amarillo, (ND TX, filed 2/28/ 2018), contends in part that the city has violated the Establishment Clause by forcing people into faith-based shelters.  Texas Observer reports on the lawsuit.

Appellate Court Narrows Ruling Allowing Clearing Of Homeless Encampments

In State of Ohio ex rel. New Prospect Baptist Church v, Rulehlman (OH App., Dec. 20, 2019), an Ohio state appellate court, narrowed an injunction previously issued by a trial court.  The city of Cincinnati had allowed homeless encampments to be created.  In a suit against the city, it was alleged that these presented a hazard to health and safety and constituted a nuisance. Agreeing with that contention, the trial court held that city and county law enforcement authorities could to clear homeless encampments throughout the city and county.  New Prospect Baptist Church, which was not a party to the trial court action, sued to prevent enforcement of the injunction against its use of its 4-acre site in the city as a refuge for the homeless. The appellate court issued a writ of prohibition requiring the trial court to narrow its injunction. The appeals court said in part:

[The trial judge's] permanent injunction is unauthorized by law to the extent that respondent seeks to enjoin actions by private nonparties, not found to be aiding or abetting a named defendant, within the city limits of Cincinnati, and by any entity outside the city limits of Cincinnati. Respondent’s orders imposing additional health and safety conditions on entities like New Prospect are similarly unauthorized by law.

City Beat, reports on the decision.

Religious Homeless Shelter and Treatment Program Not Limited By Fair Housing Act

In Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission Ministries, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82459 (D ID, Sept. 10, 2009), an Idaho federal district court held that the homeless shelter component of the Boise Rescue Mission is not a "dwelling" and therefore is not subject to the religious anti-discrimination provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act. It also held that both in the homeless shelter and in the Rescue Mission's second component-- a residential recovery program for individuals with drug or alcohol dependency-- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act bars application of the Fair Housing Act to prohibit the Rescue Mission's religious activities or religious favoritism of certain participants. Plaintiffs in the case challenged preferential treatment of homeless shelter residents who participated in the shelter's religious programs, and and also complained of required participation in Christian religious activities for those in the New Life Discipleship/Recovery Program. Expanding on its RFRA holding, the court wrote:

The court ... finds the following to be core ecclesiastical matters with which the government may not interfere: a religious organization's teaching, preaching, and proselytizing to individuals on its own property; a religious organization's preferential treatment of guests on its property who attend religious services; a religious organization's limiting participation in a residential addiction recovery program to individuals who are or who wish to be of the same faith; and a religious organization's imposing requirements that guests and residents on its property attend and/or participate in religious services and activities.

Conditions Imposed On Church's Homeless Shelter Violate RUIPA

In First Lutheran Church v. City of St. Paul, (D MN, July 2, 2018), a Minnesota federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against two conditions the city imposed on the church's partnering with Listening House in the use of the church's basement as a day shelter for the homeless. One condition was a requirement that a sign be posted restricting after hours use of church grounds. The church objected saying that visitors are welcome to enjoy its property at any time. The second condition limited the number of guests to 20 per day, even though 50 to 60 are typically served and the fire code capacity for the basement is 122. The court, finding a violation of RLUIPA, said in part:

With respect to the sign-posting requirement, the governmental interest furthered is the help the City needs to enforce trespassing.... Even assuming that aiding the enforcement of trespassing is a compelling governmental interest, entry onto First Lutheran’s property after hours is not trespassing because First Lutheran consents to people being on church property after hours.... 

With respect to the twenty-person limit, the City claims that the condition furthers the governmental interest in maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood.... The limit purportedly furthers this interest in two ways: by reducing the number of guests and thereby preventing overcrowding of a residential neighborhood, and by reducing petty offenses allegedly committed by guests. But, in practice, the limit is unlikely to further the City’s interest in either way....

First, it is unclear whether or how the limit will reduce overcrowding. As noted, demand is high for First Lutheran’s and Listening House’s services. As news spreads about the twenty-person limit, it is likely that more prospective guests will line up early in hopes of being admitted, which would cause more overcrowding in the morning hours....

Second, the limit is unlikely to reduce petty offenses.... If Listening House closed its doors tomorrow, its guests who are homeless or poor would still be homeless or poor, and the City would continue to experience the effects of homelessness and poverty. 

The court also found that the sign posting requirement amounts to unconstitutional content-based compelled speech.

Court Rejects Challenges To Permit Requirement For Homeless Shelter

In Family Life Church v. City of Elgin, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47210 (ND IL, June 18, 2008), an Illinois federal district court rejected a series of challenges by Family Life Church to Elgin, Illinois requirement that it obtain a conditional use permit in order to operate a homeless shelter in its church building. It was eventually granted a permit, but sued challenging the 8-month delay it faced as well as the permit requirement. The court rejected the Church's free exercise and RLUIPA challenges, finding that "Elgin's zoning ordinances are facially neutral and generally applicable and ... have not saddled Family Life with a substantial burden." It also rejected the Church's Equal Protection challenge and its challenge under the "equal terms" and the "unreasonable limitations"provisions of RLUIPA. It rejected the challenge by a homeless man, also a plaintiff, to limitations on the length of time those from outside the city could stay at the shelter. Finally it rejected the Church's state RFRA claim and the homeless plaintiff's infliction of emotional distress claim.

California Pastor Won't Disperse Homeless From Church Steps

Today's Los Angeles Times reports that the pastor of Long Beach, California’s First Congregational Church is refusing to comply with orders from the city prosecutor’s office to disperse the 15 to 20 homeless people who camp each night on the steps between the sidewalk and the front door of the church. The prosecutor says that its office has received complaints about urination, defecation and littering, and that the church could face fines of $1000 per day for maintaining a nuisance. The church is relying on a ruling in by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals protecting a similar situation at midtown Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. (See prior posting.) The prosecutor’s office says a number of the homeless people, who cart cardboard and blankets through the neighborhood to the church each night, have been informed that nearby shelters are available to them. However City Council member Bonnie Lowenthal says the city does not have enough housing for the homeless available. The city and First Congregational Church’s pastor Jerald Stinson will meet shortly to see if a compromise can be worked out.

Court Upholds Refusal To Allow Church To Run Religious Services In City Homeless Shelters

In Caractor v. City of New York Department of Homeless Services, (SD NY, June  14, 2013), a New York federal district court rejected free speech, free exercise and equal protection challenges by the head of the Discovered Being Ministry to New York's refusal to permit him to conduct Christian religious services inside city homeless shelters. The court concluded that homeless shelters are non-public forums and that "DHS’s decision to limit access to external organizations that either assist in providing shelter, aid shelter residents to find permanent housing, or provide services mandated or authorized by law -- a restriction which consequently excludes religious organizations -- is both reasonable and viewpoint
neutral."

Church Sues Under RLUIPA To Operate Homeless Shelter

The Shawnee Mission Unitarian Universalist Church has filed a RLUIPA lawsuit against the city of Lenexa, Kansas which has denied the church zoning approval to operate an overnight homeless shelter for the winter months.  According to KCUR News, the church, in cooperation with the nonprofit Project 1020, wants to use the former elementary school building in which it is located as a shelter for up to 40 people. The building now is zoned residential single family, though it borders commercial and office properties. Lexana has no areas zoned for homeless shelters.

Suit Challenges Fort Lauderdale Restrictions On Feeding Homeless In Parks

Daily Business Review reports on a lawsuit filed Wednesday by Episcopal priest Rev. Mark Sims challenging a Fort Lauderdale, Florida ordinance that took effect on Nov. 1 imposing various requirements on organizations feeding the homeless in public parks. The suit claims the new law violates the federal and state constitutions as well as the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Sims and activist Arnold Abbott have been cited for violating the new law. According to the news report:

The highly publicized ordinance has been championed by Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Seiler and ridiculed by cable television political satirist Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report." The most notable alleged violator is 90-year-old homeless activist Arnold Abbott.

The city bars "outdoor food distribution centers" within 500 feet of a residential property or other food distribution center and requires centers to provide restrooms, equipment for the disposal of water and wastewater, written consent of the property owner, food temperature controls and other conditions.

Apparently separately, 90-year old Abbott filed a motion to enforce an injunction issued in 2000 against an earlier Fort Lauderdale ordinance.