Phoenix church group fights food distribution ban

Lance Brace, founder of St. Herman's Table, a ministry of Exaltation of the Holy Cross Orthodox Church, said a Phoenix ordinance passed in early May and took effect June 7 criminalizes his evangelism and makes it impossible for him to provide food, water, Bibles and small hygiene products to unhoused people in city parks.

The ministry provides those items with the ultimate goal "to introduce Jesus Christ to the people it serves," the complaint says.

But Phoenix's new law makes it a misdemeanor for groups to host feeding and medical events in city parks without first securing a permit. The measure bans needle-exchange events and sets limits on where, how often and the types of food and health-related services that organizations can provide to the unhoused at city parks.

In a complaint filed in federal court June 2, Brace and the ministry said the rule violated their rights under the First Amendment and state law by creating an unconstitutional prior restraint on expression and treating religious activity differently than secular activity.

The filing points to the ordinance's language targeting groups with "charitable or similar humanitarian proposes" but exempting from its permitting requirements "family events such as celebrations, weddings, meals, or reunions or informal gatherings of family or family friends."

"The U.S. Supreme Court has declared, under the Free Exercise Clause, governments cannot treat secular activity more favorably than religious exercise," the complaint says.

The lawsuit asks the court to temporarily restrain the city from enforcing the rule during litigation and ultimately declare the ordinance unconstitutional and prohibit Phoenix from enforcing it.

Brace told city officials before they passed the ordinance that it would "force people of conscience to choose between engaging with our faith and submitting to the law."

At another meeting, he told them, "I am not here to argue against order, safety, or cleanliness in our parks. Those are legitimate concerns. But those concerns can be addressed without prohibiting or effectively prohibiting acts of charity."

Phoenix spokeswoman Ashley Patton said the city "has received the lawsuit and intends to defend against it. We believe our ordinance is lawful."

How should cities balance charity, homelessness concerns?

The lawsuit fuels an ongoing and contentious discussion about homelessness that has beleaguered multiple Valley cities: How should elected officials balance concerns about homelessness and safety in public spaces used by children alongside groups and individuals who want to engage in charity they believe is constitutionally protected?

In 2025, a group of residents sued Tempe for an ordinance that required permits for events with more than 30 people in a park. The residents believed the permit targeted their events, holding free picnics for unhoused people.

The picnics had provoked fierce backlash from nearby homeowners who claimed they brought about litter, fires, and disorder that endangered their community and harmed residents' quality of life. But the plaintiffs argued the picnics were a charitable expression, and that Tempe's ordinance was unconstitutional because it prevented or seriously burdened that expression.

The plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit after elected leaders rescinded the ordinance. However, the council again pivoted and, in April, revived discussions about a new permit ordinance. City spokesperson Kris Baxter said the City Council likely would consider the measure in September.

If passed, the rule could bring another wave of litigation and community backlash. Before Tempe's council rescinded its ordinance, the Phoenix branch of the Democratic Socialists of America had launched a referendum effort that garnered more than 4,500 signatures in a month. The referendum's aim was to send the ordinance to residents for voter approval.

Why the ministry thinks its activity is protected

The plaintiffs in the Phoenix lawsuit say the ministry has befriended homeless individuals at Cave Creek Park, handing out food and Bibles and speaking about the Gospel. But under the ordinance, they say, they're unsure how the city would view their activity and whether the permitting requirement would apply.

They believe a permit would be required because of the ministry's charitable intent, but they note that the ordinance doesn't define categories like "private events," "informal gathering of family or friends" or "picnics." That vagueness makes it hard to interpret and could pave way for discriminatory enforcement, they say.

The lawsuit claims that the church group's food distribution is "expressive activity" that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has protected under the First Amendment. They also say Phoenix's permitting requirements are a "prior restraint on speech" and therefore must be viewpoint-neutral, actually advance a goal claimed by the city and "leave open ample alternatives for communication."

While municipalities can enact time, place and manner restrictions, the lawsuit says since Phoenix's ordinance exempts some groups and not others, it's "not content neutral and is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."

The complaint takes aim at the lack of appeals process, broad discretion given to city officials and absence of "evidence to support the ordinance's alleged interest."

The lawsuit also claims "less restrictive means are available to address the city's trash, litter, crowding, noise, and safety concerns."

What happens next with the lawsuit?

The city's ordinance took effect June 7, according to a city spokesperson. However, a judge will consider the plaintiffs' emergency requests to prohibit the city from enforcing. A ruling likely will come shortly after June 8.

Before the Phoenix City Council passed the ordinance, Brace told elected officials, "The role of government is not to stand between a person and their duty to love their neighbor."

"For two thousand years, the Church has fed the hungry as a core part of its life and witness. That practice will continue," he said.