First Vagabonds Church of God v. City of Orlando, Florida
610 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2010)
Orlando enacted a group feeding ordinance which required anyone conducting a large group feeding, such as for homeless persons, obtain a permit first. The city enacted this ordinance after getting citizen complaints that numerous homeless persons were dispersing into neighborhoods following feeding events in public parks, run by Orlando Food Not Bombs and First Vagabonds Church of God, whose congregation consisted mostly of homeless persons. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration act at §761.01, et seq.; the First Amendment's free exercise, free speech and free assembly clauses; and the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The ordinance limited the number of group feedings events that any
organization can have in a single park within the Greater Downtown Park District to two per
consecutive 12 month period. This would require the plaintiffs to rotate their events among
the parks in the district or move to a park outside of the district. The lower court granted the
city summary judgment on both the due process and equal protection claims, and r4ejected
the facial free speech claim because "the conduct regulated by the ordinance is not, on its
face, an expressive activity." After a bench trial, the court granted the City's rule 52(c)
motion for judgment on the state law claim. The court later ruled in favor of the church on
its free exercise claim and in favor of Orlando Food Not Bombs on its "as applied" free
speech claim. The court ruled in favor of the City on the plaintiffs' free assembly claims. The
court permanently enjoined the city enforcing the ordinance against plaintiffs, and the City
appealed. Plaintiffs also appealed the court's grant of summary judgment on their 14th
amendment claims and state law claim. The 11th circuit found that the conduct of feeding people in a public park was not clear enough that an objective reasonable person would understand that the feeders are trying to convey a message. Thus, the conduct of feeding people was not expressive speech for 1st Amendment purposes. Because the ordinance was neutral and served a rational basis, it also could not be said to violate the free exercise clause. The ordinance applied to all organizations who sought to feed large groups in the parks. The court also found that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague facially or as applied under the due process clause, thus it affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the city. The appellate court also held that the part of the ordinance which exempted city licenses or contracted concessionaires, lessees, or licensees did not violate the equal protection clause because there was a rational basis for the City to believe that it could more effectively regulate the vendors' conduct in parks through their licenses or contracts. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal fo the state law claim and found that the ordinance imposed no substantial burden on the church's exercise of sharing food with other pursuant to a sincerely held religious belief. Although the ordinance may impose some inconvenience by requiring the feedings be relocated outside the District, it did not forbid the Church and its members from engaging in their religious exercise.