Federal court confirms that St.Louis can ban people from giving food to poor people

[dead0man]

link

The city of St. Louis did not violate the First Amendment rights of a Christian pastor and his assistant by threatening to prosecute them for handing out bologna sandwiches to the homeless, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

Pastor Raymond Redlich, vice president of the New Life Christian Evangelical Center, and his assistant, Christopher Ohnimus, were distributing bologna sandwiches and bottles of water to the homeless in October 2018 when they were cited by a police officer for violating a city ordinance regulating the distribution by temporary establishments of potentially hazardous food, such as meat, poultry, eggs or fish.

Although the city opted not to prosecute Redlich and Ohnimus for violating the ordinance, they nonetheless sued the city in federal court saying the ordinance violates their rights of free expression and religious exercise under the First Amendment.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nanette A. Baker in St. Louis granted the city’s motion to dismiss the complaint on summary judgment last year, finding Redlich and Ohnimus did not prove that their fundamental right to association was at issue.

The two men appealed that ruling to the St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit, arguing at a hearing in June that the enforcement of the ordinance against them interferes with their ability to communicate their message about God’s love and concern for those in need.

In Wednesday’s ruling, a three-judge panel ruled government regulation of “inherently expressive” conduct – such as distributing sandwiches to the homeless – does not necessarily violate the First Amendment if the regulation furthers “an important or substantial government interest” unrelated to the suppression of free expression.

“It is an imminently reasonable proposition that a municipality has a substantial interest in preventing the spread of illness or disease among its citizens, including its homeless population,” the ruling states. “The City introduced evidence that it has traced incidents of illness among its homeless population to illegally distributed food dating back to 2012.”

boooo

[jamestroll]

I hate those rethugs!!!!

[Orwell]

Based

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Based

Why?

[DaleCooper]

Our courts are completely out of control. This is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. Helping the needy is a central (and mandatory, according to the Bible) component to the Christian faith.

[jamestroll]

Our courts are completely out of control. This is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. Helping the needy is a central (and mandatory, according to the Bible) component to the Christian faith.

those rethugs want people to starve.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Our courts are completely out of control. This is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. Helping the needy is a central (and mandatory, according to the Bible) component to the Christian faith.

those rethugs want people to starve.

Who do you think runs St Louis?

[Torie]

"The City introduced evidence that it has traced incidents of illness among its homeless population to illegally distributed food dating back to 2012.”

The law had a rational basis. Handing out food is not speech. The law is Constitutional, and the decision was correct. If the Church is serious about feeding the homeless, it should be under more controlled and supervised circumstances.

[Orwell]

"The City introduced evidence that it has traced incidents of illness among its homeless population to illegally distributed food dating back to 2012.”

The law had a rational basis. Handing out food is not speech. The law is Constitutional, and the decision was correct. If the Church is serious about feeding the homeless, it should be under more controlled and supervised circumstances.

Torie, I agree completely. I think a major problem not just on Atlas, but in the real world is people taking a headline like this and jumping to conclusions. We should look into these things before blaming one side or another for a 'War on the Poor'

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Legally correct, if morally wrong.

[dead0man]

"The City introduced evidence that it has traced incidents of illness among its homeless population to illegally distributed food dating back to 2012.”

apparently there wasn't much evidence.  From Reason

Now, about that "evidence." The Eighth Circuit relied on reports of purported cases of foodborne illness among the homeless in St. Louis that the city says it traced to "illegally distributed food dating back to 2012." But exhibits in the case show those "cases" involve a former police officer who appears to have a preternatural ability to diagnose cases and causes of foodborne illness among St. Louis's homeless population.

In an August 2012 email titled "Parking Problems in Downtown West," which focuses mainly on parking and noise complaints, former St. Louis police officer Kenneth Kegel referenced the existence of "complaints" from unnamed "residents that on weekends, groups are coming downtown and providing food to the homeless." Kegel also referred in the email to "occasions where individuals have gotten sick as a result of the provided food."

That's it. That's the relevant evidence the court relied on. In his email, Kegel does not declare nor imply firsthand knowledge of such foodborne illness cases. Neither does he cite the name of any person or persons who may have such knowledge. Nor does he claim he or any medical professional diagnosed any symptom(s) of foodborne illness—or distinguished any potential sources or causes of such illnesses—something even experts find increasingly challenging.

In other words, the evidence provided to the courts by Kegel is at best, pure speculation that is entirely irrelevant to the immediate case. Even if everything Kegel wrote is 100 percent true, for a court to rely on it isn't just laughable. It's eminently unreasonable and unfair.

[Torie]

The decision is still legally correct. One can have different policy preferences obviously.