Houston Faces First Amendment Lawsuit for Cracking Down on Feeding the Homeless
Food Not Bombs activists argue that feeding the needy is core political speech, and that they don't need the city's permission to do it.
For months, Houston police have been citing and arresting local volunteers for the radical act of feeding the needy. Now the city is facing a lawsuit alleging that its crackdown on charitable giving violates the First Amendment.
The Texas Civil Rights Project filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of the Houston chapter of Food Not Bombs (FNBH), a volunteer group that distributes free food in cities worldwide. Since last March, Houston has been trying to force FNBH activists and other volunteers to move their charitable food services to a city-approved parking lot rather than near the downtown library where they had been operating with the city's consent for more than a decade. According to the suit, FNBH members have received over 89 citations from police so far, amounting to $178,000 in fines.
The suit argues that Houston's anti–food sharing ordinance is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to FNBH by imposing an invalid prior restraint on the activists' protected First Amendment rights. The city is also violating FNBH's right to expressive association, the group argues, by attempting to force them to move to the parking lot, which happens to be next to a Houston Police Department building and is patrolled by several officers during events.
Randy Hiroshige, a Texas Civil Rights Project attorney, says the issue isn't just about handing out sandwiches; it's about the government trying to suppress political speech.
"They're a protest group," Hiroshige says of Food Not Bombs. "They want to be visible, and the reason they conduct their food sharing is to show the public what it looks like when a community looks out for each other's needs and really provides mutual aid to one another."
FNBH and other groups had been operating outside the library with the city's consent since the 2012 ordinance was passed, but city officials now say the situation is a health and safety issue. Former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner suggested that the charity operations were driving families away from the library.
The city is not opposed to groups feeding those who are homeless. But doing it in front of the central library is discouraging families, children and others from using it. After people provide the food, they leave but those who are homeless camp around the library and stay. st
— Sylvester Turner (@SylvesterTurner) August 4, 2023
FNBH's lawsuit notes that they serve food at 7:30 at night, well after the library has closed.
The city's attempts to enforce the ordinance, which outlaws providing free food to more than five people "in need" at outdoor locations without permission, have not gone well. One activist was acquitted, while other cases have been dismissed and delayed because prosecutors can't find jurors who are willing to fine people $500 for the crime of feeding the needy.
The city of Houston may not fare much better in civil court either. In 2014, the city of Dallas was forced to rewrite its food safety regulations and pay two ministries $250,000 after the ministries won a lawsuit challenging restrictions on charitable giving.
Similar cases have popped up elsewhere. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in 2018 that distributing food was "expressive conduct" protected under the First Amendment. That decision was a response to a lawsuit by the Food Not Bombs chapter in Fort Lauderdale.
As Reason has previously reported, crackdowns on good Samaritans began spreading across the country during the first decade of the century, and that trend has accelerated in recent years as the number of homeless people in the U.S. has surged to record highs. Anti-camping and anti-panhandling laws are also proliferating.
"The city is also sending a message that they don't want unhoused people to be visible to the public," Hiroshige says. "And so in addition to this crackdown on the protected activity of food sharing, there's also just this deeper trend of cities trying to remove unhoused people from the public sphere."
The Houston mayor's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
this deeper trend of cities trying to remove unhoused people from the public sphere.”
Wonder why that would be?
I am creating an honest wage from home of 1900 Dollars/week, which is wonderful, below a year gone I was unemployed during an atrocious economy. I convey God daily. I used to be endowed with these directions and currently, I have to pay it forward and share it with everybody,
Here is where I started………. http://Www.Worktoday7.co
“Former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner suggested that the charity operations were driving families away from the library.”
Asking for a friend; does the library host drag queen story hours?
Just checking after the post:
Yep, that’s Sylvester Turner (D)
Asking for a friend; does the library host drag queen story hours?
Sounds like there are a lot of bums hanging out around the library either way.
“homeless people in the U.S. has surged to record highs.”
What? According to the Biden Administration the economy is better than ever before.
Pluggo insists that this is the case. He also fucks children.
“They’re a protest group,” Hiroshige says of Food Not Bombs. “They want to be visible, and the reason they conduct their food sharing is to show the public what it looks like when a community looks out for each other’s needs and really provides mutual aid to one another.”
So, out of curiosity, if I left a table full of free weapons out next to the table full of food, you know, as a protest, that would be both 1 and 2A protected, right?
What about if I hung a bunch of weapons on a Thunderdome-type structure and put a table full of free food inside… as a highly visible protest? Still protected speech, right?
I mean I really think I may have the solution to both parties’ problems here. In the end, the homeless population will be reduced and everyone who’s homeless will get fed.
Once upon a time, ‘expression of religion’ was a reason why various welfare-type social improvements (such as feeding the poor) didn’t need to be done by the state but could be done by civic associations and the uniquely American experience was that civic associations did almost everything – voluntarily. And far better than the similar English experience of poorhouses (which were also non-state driven).
Now – commenters here – who generally either dislike religion – don’t want any of this stuff done, want it done by someone else if it is to be done, and certainly don’t want it done in their neighborhood and want to make sure that that latter in particular is enforced by govt.
What a vapid bunch of shits.
commenters here – who generally either dislike religion – don’t want any of this stuff done, want it done by someone else if it is to be done, and certainly don’t want it done in their neighborhood and want to make sure that that latter in particular is enforced by govt
I just read all the comments to this story and none of them say this. Do you have an alternate reason site where you are getting this? Or are you just making shit up?
I don’t think feeding homeless people should be illegal, but I also don’t think it’s protected First Amendment activity. “I want to do this thing” is a message, but the fact that you’re expressing that message can’t give you permission to do the thing, or else *any* law would be invalidated.
The group is presumably free to assemble and protest and spread the message of “food not bombs”. They just can’t distribute free food on public property without permission. Just like a hypothetical “bombs not food” counter-protestors can’t distribute bombs.
Agree. Couldn’t have said it better myself.