Pastor Raymond Redlich, of the New Life Evangelistic Center, has passed out food for the homeless in the city of St. Louis for nearly four decades, following his faith and the Bible’s dictation to feed the hungry. With his formerly homeless assistant, Christopher Ohnimus, he gave water in the summer, coffee in the winter, and prayed with those who wanted to pray; he did this for four to five days a week, around 225 nights a year. On Halloween night in 2018, a St. Louis police officer observed Redlich distributing bologna sandwiches and issued both Redlich and Ohnimus a citation for violating the city ordinance which required a temporary food permit for the distribution of “potentially dangerous” food.
Both Pastor Redlich and Mr. Ohnimus in their Christian faith believe it is their religious duty to provide food, drink, and spiritual support to the homeless population of St. Louis, and feel that this citation and requirement for a permit is a violation of their First Amendment rights to free exercise. They filed suit and in July 2021, the case went before the District Court, where the judge ruled in favor of the city. This was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in a recent decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the prior judgment, deciding that the actions of the City of St. Louis did not violate Pastor Redlich’s free exercise under the First Amendment.
Both Pastor Redlich and Mr. Ohnimus in their Christian faith believe it is their religious duty to provide food, drink, and spiritual support to the homeless population of St. Louis, and feel that this citation and requirement for a permit is a violation of their First Amendment rights to free exercise. They filed suit and in July 2021, the case went before the District Court, where the judge ruled in favor of the city. This was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in a recent decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the prior judgment, deciding that the actions of the City of St. Louis did not violate Pastor Redlich’s free exercise under the First Amendment.
At the time of the citation, the St. Louis Ordinance placed restrictions on the distribution of “potentially hazardous food,” specifically “the preparation or service of…sandwiches containing meat, poultry, eggs, or fish.” Those who wanted to distribute these potentially hazardous foods would need to apply for a temporary permit which costs $50 a day and must be applied for 48 hours before the event. The operation must have “a hand-washing station for employees; several food-grade washtubs; and enough potable water available for food preparation, cleaning of utensils and other equipment, and for hand washing” (Redlich v. City of St. Louis, 3). The city did not pursue the citations and introduced a Charitable Feeding Temporary Food Permit in April 2020, at a reduced cost, as well as a Temporary Food Safety Training Program. The city of St. Louis pushes back against Redlich and argues that the ordinance does not infringe upon the free exercise of his religious beliefs, it just protects the safety of the city residents. Redlich asserts that the city’s enforcement of the Ordinance, in other words, the requirement of a permit, not only disrupts and burdens their feeding of the homeless but in addition is a substantial burden to their free exercise as it interferes with their ability to communicate God’s message of charitable deeds.
In my initial reading of the case, I found it difficult to draw the line between providing protection for the city residents and over-regulation of religious actions. If these bologna sandwiches had given those who ate them food poisoning, would this case result in a public outcry for more efficient regulation? I, therefore, base my opinion on the precedent of Cantwell v. Connecticut, decided by the Supreme Court in 1940. In this case, Newton Cantwell and his sons, all Jehovah’s Witnesses, were proselytizing in a Catholic neighborhood and were arrested and charged with violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate–similar to the temporary permit that Redlich needed to acquire. Justice Roberts, in the majority opinion, reasoned that although the statute was neutrally applicable and there was a compelling interest by local officials, the maintenance of public order could not justify the suppression of free religious speech and therefore exercise.
In Pastor Redlich’s case, a bologna sandwich made by God’s will to feed the homeless seems trivial in comparison to the proselytizing of views in Cantwell v. Connecticut, in which the Court ruled in favor of the solicitors. The St. Louis Ordinance, similarly, is a facially neutral statute but is there a less restrictive means to achieve safe food preparation for the homeless that does not restrict Pastor Redlich’s free exercise and religious belief in charitable actions? It seems that even with a reduced cost Charitable Feeding Temporary Food Permit, Pastor Redlich would have to apply for a temporary permit two days prior to each time he goes to hand out food–this means almost every day of the week he would apply and reapply for the same permit. Additionally, with only him and his assistant, he would need to buy almost a full kitchen on wheels to ensure the operation is within the ordinance restrictions. This, to me, is a substantial burden on his food donation and therefore a substantial burden on his religion, since his Evangelist faith rests on the belief that he must feed the hungry. Is a bologna sandwich really a “hazardous food” when the people consuming them might not have eaten anything in days?
Sources:
7 comments:
It is clear that Redlich’s beliefs are sincere in regards to passing food and drink out to the homeless as a part of his faith, as he has been doing this for four decades without a problem. In regards to Redlich’s First Amendment Free Exercise rights, I do see them having been infringed upon when cited and told they need a permit. The state has a compelling interest to protect the well being of their citizens and the food they eat, which is carried out through making people apply for a permit. This should not be looked over just because this food is being served to homeless people who might be unable to access food otherwise. However, I think making Redlich pay $50 for this permit, or even any amount of money, is unnecessary and infringes on his rights. Essentially this makes it so that Redlich must pay the state to carry out his religious belief, so the state's compelling interest ultimately places a substantial burden on him. I think your relation to Cantwell v. Connecticut is interesting as that case more so dealt with the issue of the solicitors expressing their beliefs to the public. In another light, Redlich’s charity work might also be seen as an establishment of belief onto the homeless people, but this would be another issue within itself. Overall, his work does benefit the community and he should be able to carry out his religious beliefs free of charge.
There are no doubts that Redlich is performing a great service to the St. Louis community. He is helping many individuals get the much needed food they need. I however, agree with the courts that the requirement for a permit does not harm his free exercise rights. The law does not require a permit for all foods, but only those which have the opportunity to be hazardous, "sandwiches containing meat, poultry, eggs, or fish.” This requirement may prevent Redlich from handing out his bologna sandwiches without a permit, but would not prevent him from handing out many other types of food like granola bars, pb&j sandwiches, and any other foods that do not require a permit. The state's requirements are not imposing a substantial burden on Redlich by making it harder for him to hand out certain types of food, and they do have a compelling state interest in preventing their citizens from consuming unsafe, hazardous food.
Great post! I, too, saw similarities between this case and that of Cantwell v. Connecticut. In that case, the city had a serious interest in protection its people from scam artists; similarly, in this case the city is interested in protecting its poor from spoiled food. However, the interests of both cities conflict with free exercise, as the Cantwell's and Redlich's religion requires them each to conduct an act that would typically require a permit. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, the Court ruled in favor of free exercise. I would agree that this case should follow suit, especially if Redlich was made to pay a fee (regardless of the sum) each day in order to help the homeless and act according to his religion.
A city ordinance simply prohibiting the distribution of certain items without an appropriate permit does not strike me as inherently violating the free exercise clause, since any burden placed on religious activity is purely incidental and a compelling state interest for the statute exists. Additionally, the ordinance in question seems to be issued on "shall-issue" basis, so there is little concern for viewpoint-based discrimination. With that said, some of the particular details of this specific St. Louis ordinance are troubling. The fact that a cost is associated with obtaining the permit and that organizations need to reapply for the permit every night both seem like needlessly burdensome restrictions. If a statute does burden religion, even incidentally, it should do so in the least restrictive means possible. I do not believe the St. Louis ordinance in question met that requirement, since the $50 fee could easily be dropped, and the permit could be granted in perpetuity or over a much longer period of time.
You had a great post! I thought you laid out the facts of the case in a great manner. I also do not understand why after so many years how his ministry of feeding the homeless is now an issue? This makes me decide with the pastor because I believe the real “underlying” issue might have been his religious message and not so much handing out the food. If the pastor is providing food for the homeless, who more than likely eat food out of dumpsters, and from where they can gather, I don’t think there should have been a city ordinance banning the distribution of food based on “dangerous” ingredients especially what they eat could be potentially worse. If it is a public event, then yes I would support the ordinance. However, this man is giving his time and money to spread the gospel and have ministry by helping those in need. Therefore, banning him from doing so, I believe is a violation of his Free Exercise rights. I also liked how you used the predecent case of Cantwell v. Connecticut because I believe this will show how the Court will favor the pastor and not the city.
What a great post! I think the city is being highly overzealous in its ordinances. Forcing all of those requirements would harm a religious organization that wants to do good and follow their religious practices of giving out food to the homeless. Furthermore, it places a substantial burden on the church to pay a $50 permit everyday just to hand out food. It is also a highly restrictive means for the state to achieve their interest of keeping food safe, as they could just issue licenses instead of permits.
Post a Comment