City of Brookings can’t stop churches from feeding the homeless, judge rules

John Ross Ferrara
·2 min read
1
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — A federal judge has ruled that the City of Brookings cannot place a limit on the number of days local churches feed the hungry.

On March 27, U.S. Magistrate Mark Clarke ruled that the City of Brookings violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act when it unanimously passed an ordinance in October of 2021, limiting churches and organizations to two “benevolent meal services” per week.

The Oregon Justice Resource Center filed a lawsuit against the City of Brookings in response to the ordinance, stating that it violated Oregon and U.S. constitutional laws. The suit was filed on behalf of the St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church in Brookings and its Portland-based diocese — the Episcopal Diocese of Oregon — which regularly offers free food and other services to the homeless people of Curry County.

These two Columbia River bridges have the highest risk of shipping damage: Experts

“There can be no genuine question that St. Timothy’s feeding ministry is a sincerely held religious belief,” Clarke wrote in his decision. “… as a general, practical matter, feeding the hungry and caring for the most vulnerable members of a community is at the very heart and foundation of the Christian tradition.”

The ruling, first reported by the Wild Rivers Outpost, states that the ordinance violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act because it forced the church to choose between practicing its faith or avoiding $720 fines imposed by the city. Prior to the decision, the U.S. Department of Justice also issued a statement in U.S. District Court, which said that the ordinance “substantially burdened” St. Timothy’s religious freedoms.

6 earthquakes hit Oregon Coast, one moderate in magnitude

“Here, the ordinance violates RLUIPA because there is no genuine dispute that the ordinance is a land use regulation that substantially burdens [the] plaintiffs feeding ministry, which is an exercise of [the] plaintiffs’ religion,” Clarke wrote. “The city has not articulated a ‘compelling government interest’ served by burdening that exercise; and, even if the city had identified a compelling interest, the ordinance is not the least restrictive means to achieve it.”

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KOIN.com.