Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 19-13604
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
Writing for the Court | MARCUS, Circuit Judge |
Citation | 11 F.4th 1266 |
Parties | FORT LAUDERDALE FOOD NOT BOMBS, Nathan Pim, Jillian Pim, Haylee Becker, William Toole, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Defendant - Appellee. |
Docket Number | No. 19-13604,19-13604 |
Decision Date | 31 August 2021 |
11 F.4th 1266
FORT LAUDERDALE FOOD NOT BOMBS, Nathan Pim, Jillian Pim, Haylee Becker, William Toole, Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Defendant - Appellee.
No. 19-13604
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
August 31, 2021
Jodi Siegel, Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., Gainesville, FL, Andrea Hope Costello, Florida Legal Services, Newberry, FL, Mara Shlackman, Law Offices of Mara Shlackman, PL, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Michael Thomas Burke, Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, PA, Alain E. Boileau, Alain E. Boileau, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before LAGOA, HULL, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
This case presents the second appellate skirmish in Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs's ("FLFNB") challenge to Fort Lauderdale's efforts to shut down the practice of sharing food with the homeless in downtown Stranahan Park. FLFNB hosts food-sharing events in order to communicate the group's message that scarce social resources are unjustly skewed towards military projects and away from feeding the hungry. In Round One, a panel of this Court held FLFNB's food sharing to be expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and remanded the case to the district court to address whether the City's regulations actually violated the First Amendment. Now, in Round Two, we must decide whether Fort Lauderdale Park Rule 2.2, which requires City permission for social service food-sharing events
in all Fort Lauderdale parks, can withstand First Amendment scrutiny as applied to FLFNB's demonstrations.
It cannot. The Park Rule commits the regulation of FLFNB's protected expression to the standardless discretion of the City's permitting officials. The Park Rule bans social service food sharing in Stranahan Park unless authorized pursuant to a written agreement with Fort Lauderdale (the "City"). That's all the rule says. It provides no guidance and in no way explains when, how, or why the City will agree in writing. As applied to FLFNB's protected expression, it violates the First Amendment. It is neither narrowly drawn to further a substantial government interest that is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, nor, as applied, does it amount to a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation on expression in a public forum. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the City and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
A.
Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs is a nonprofit unincorporated association affiliated with the international advocacy organization Food Not Bombs. FLFNB advocates the message "that food is a human right, not a privilege, which society has a responsibility to provide for all." Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 2018) (" FLFNB I").
At the center of FLFNB's efforts are its weekly food sharing events in Fort Lauderdale's downtown Stranahan Park. Stranahan Park "is known in the community as a location where the homeless tend to congregate and, according to FLFNB, ‘has traditionally been a battleground over the City's attempts to reduce the visibility of homelessness.’ " Id. "At these events, FLFNB distributes vegetarian or vegan food, free of charge, to anyone who chooses to participate. FLFNB does not serve food as a charity, but rather to communicate its message ‘that [ ] society can end hunger and poverty if we redirect our collective resources from the military and war ....’ Providing food in a visible public space, and partaking in meals that are shared with others, is an act of political solidarity meant to convey the organization's message." Id.
"FLFNB sets up a table underneath a gazebo in the park, distributes food, and its members ... eat together with all of the participants, many of whom are homeless individuals residing in the downtown Fort Lauderdale area. FLFNB's set-up includes a banner with the name ‘Food Not Bombs’ and the organization's logo -- a fist holding a carrot -- and individuals associated with the organization pass out literature during the event." Id. This includes flyers to convey FLFNB's social-justice message that all who are hungry deserve food.
B.
Sometime before 2000, the City of Fort Lauderdale promulgated Park Rule 2.2:
Parks shall be used for recreation and relaxation, ornament, light and air for the general public. Parks shall not be used for business or social service purposes unless authorized pursuant to a written agreement with City. As used herein, social services shall include, but not be limited to, the provision of food, clothing, shelter or medical care to persons in order to meet their physical needs.
Some years ago, Arnold Abbott, who led a program to feed the homeless on a public Fort Lauderdale beach, obtained a state-court injunction against the Park Rule on
the ground that it violated Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Fla. Stat. § 761.03. (Abbott is not affiliated with FLFNB.) The injunction required the City to either stop enforcing the Park Rule, designate an area in which Abbott could lawfully distribute food, or specify objective criteria for permitted food-sharing locations. See Abbott v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 783 So. 2d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
The City stopped enforcing the Park Rule until October 22, 2014, when it enacted Ordinance C-14-42 to amend the Fort Lauderdale Uniform Land Development Regulations ("ULDR"). The City enacted this ordinance at least in part as an effort to bring itself into compliance with the state-court injunction so that it could resume enforcement of the Park Rule. In the years leading up to the enactment of Ordinance C-14-42, some citizens had complained about a series of problems they believed to be associated with feeding the homeless in public spaces, including safety risks, a lack of proper water and restroom facilities, and the negative impact this conduct may have on surrounding communities. In January 2014, the City Commission held a workshop on the "the homeless population in the City of Fort Lauderdale," where stakeholders debated public food distribution and related issues.
Ordinance C-14-42, as relevant here, (1) defines an Outdoor Food Distribution Center as "[a]ny location or site temporarily used to furnish meals to members of the public without cost or at a very low cost as a social service"; (2) defines "social service[ ]" as "[a]ny service provided to the public to address public welfare and health such as, but not limited to, the provision of food; hygiene care; group rehabilitative or recovery assistance, or any combination thereof; rehabilitative or recovery programs utilizing counseling, self-help or other treatment or assistance; and day shelter or any combination of same"; and (3) requires a conditional use zoning permit for the operation of an Outdoor Food Distribution Center in Stranahan Park.1 The other city parks in Fort Lauderdale (of which there are more than 90, City of Fort Lauderdale, City Parks, https://www.fortlauderdale.gov/departments/parks-recreation/city-parks (last visited June 29, 2021)) are zoned so that public food-sharing events are not allowed at all, even by permit. Thus, the Ordinance prohibits social service food distribution in most parks and does not provide for food sharing as of right in any park.
To obtain a conditional use permit, an individual or group must wind through a lengthy process for receiving a zoning variance. This involves an initial application to the Development Review Committee (which meets twice a month); upon approval, a subsequent submission and presentation to the Planning and Zoning Board (which meets once a month); and then a subsequent review by the City Commission. The City Commission has 30 days to decide whether to conduct its own review of the application; if the City Commission does not, the application is considered approved and returns to the Development Review Committee for a check to make sure the final permit is the same as the plan the Zoning Board approved. There is no deadline for a permit to issue, and the
City's zoning administrator could not provide an average time for resolving applications. Applicants must pay a fee for City staff time spent reviewing an application; the fee can rise as high as $6,000, which the City may reduce in its unguided discretion.
Permitting requirements for outdoor food distribution include that the proposed activities must not impose a nuisance or cause a change to the character of the area, that the use be 500 feet away from similar uses and residential property, that food be timely served and stored at safe temperatures, that a certified food service manager attend the event, and that the site provide handwashing, wastewater disposal, and restroom facilities.
Soon after the Ordinance passed, the City began enforcing it along with the Park Rule. Police officers interrupted and stopped an FLFNB demonstration in Stranahan Park on November 7, 2014. On that day, the city arrested and cited FLFNB members and other demonstrators for violating both the Ordinance and the Park Rule. The City also...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Netchoice, LLC v. Attorney Gen., 21-12355
...scrutiny applies and whether the Act's provisions survive that scrutiny. See Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale , 11 F.4th 1266, 1291 (11th Cir. 2021) (" FLFNB II ").For reasons we will explain in the balance of the opinion, we hold as follows: (1) S.B. 7072......
-
Florida State Conference of NAACP v. Lee, Case No.: 4:21cv187-MW/MAF
...to Defendant Lee's arguments raised in ECF No. 122-1 of 4:21cv201.10 See also Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale , 11 F.4th 1266, 1284 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, when considering whether voluntary cessation moots a case, no factor is dispositive because "......
-
Club Madonna Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 20-14292
..."[a]s a practical matter, there is little difference between" them. Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale , 11 F.4th 1266, 1297 (11th Cir. 2021) ; see also Barnes, 501 U.S. at 566, 111 S.Ct. 2456 (explaining that both tests "embody much the same standards&......
-
Varner v. Shepard, 19-12048
..."some responsive action with respect to the type of allegations [the complainant] raises." Id. at 736 n.4, 121 S.Ct. 1819. In 11 F.4th 1266 other words, it is an "act on the subject of the complaint." Id. In Booth , this meant that the "grievance system addressed co......
-
Netchoice, LLC v. Attorney Gen., 21-12355
...scrutiny applies and whether the Act's provisions survive that scrutiny. See Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale , 11 F.4th 1266, 1291 (11th Cir. 2021) (" FLFNB II ").For reasons we will explain in the balance of the opinion, we hold as follows: (1) S.B. 7072......
-
Florida State Conference of NAACP v. Lee, Case No.: 4:21cv187-MW/MAF
...to Defendant Lee's arguments raised in ECF No. 122-1 of 4:21cv201.10 See also Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale , 11 F.4th 1266, 1284 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, when considering whether voluntary cessation moots a case, no factor is dispositive because "......
-
Club Madonna Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 20-14292
..."[a]s a practical matter, there is little difference between" them. Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale , 11 F.4th 1266, 1297 (11th Cir. 2021) ; see also Barnes, 501 U.S. at 566, 111 S.Ct. 2456 (explaining that both tests "embody much the same standards&......
-
Varner v. Shepard, 19-12048
..."some responsive action with respect to the type of allegations [the complainant] raises." Id. at 736 n.4, 121 S.Ct. 1819. In 11 F.4th 1266 other words, it is an "act on the subject of the complaint." Id. In Booth , this meant that the "grievance system addressed co......