and so instead of fifteen minutes we're going to allow each side to have twenty minutes mr anderson how would you like to divide that time for yourself i would like to divide it by having i have fifteen minutes uptrend then by minutes for about a perfect thank you engaged in expressive conduct protected by the st amendment when it holds weekly demonstrations in a downtown city park to share food with all her present to communicate their political message that food is a human right at issue today is the constitutionality of the cit based on the park rules to crunching that's correct because the park rule is what creates a blanket ban in all city parks rijkaard list of the the new ordinance that the city asked to stop serving food but continued serving that that docket forty nine dash thirty two and in the affidavit of the individually named plaintiff they all state that she was a rabbit regular member of the food not bombs group and they were she was arrested when they were president the park were all to ban food sharing outdoors as a social service in city parks the city has not turned an ambiguous plea terminator had its policy of doing style when it repealed certain provisions of the ordinance it left in place the park rule which is a complete ban and all city parks and so that the core case the controversy remains in this case  attempting to require zoning permit for temporary use of city parks which isn't so we're not looking at it in general here with respect to your lives right and that's why we're just trying to understand where we are at this dollars all of the plaintiffs have claims for damages and contrary to the cities and supported allegations by by counsel they get both the ordinance and the park rule were applied to the threw who or what is a person who is an uninformed created organization that is not a human a person the reason i raise the question and to decide whether person extends both to natural mabel persons in the court decided yes that's correct in that case the court was looking at the legal entity of a municipal corporation and whether or not or  that's a someone who can be sued in their sort of this miriam logic that if you're using the term person as an individual cannot be sued that that should have the same meaning for the a person who can sue and there's been a while history of as well i have sort of a general merits question for you suppose the city of your form lauderdale that's where the battle of the distribution of all social services  parks whether it's feeding about the very close with him in the providing shelter for those without poems providing hygiene or medical care we just don't want that in the fall on the distribution of also fuel services in the all of the parks in the city they could constitutionally that so long as they could show that they're applying this even handed general public's park shall not be used for business or social purposes unless authorized pursuant to a written agreement with the city so it suggests that at least under some circumstances perhaps the city has and simply said no social services shall be distributor you know any of our parks could they constitutionally do that would not be content neutral i think the issue i'm talking about how they define a social service a service designed and intended to be large numbers of people who already is i'm not saying that's what they did here  was banning subs giving out food as a social service completely and so the question is if there's a rational basis for the city making that determination why would that not be constitutional i don't think that that would be merely tailored because if it does implicate each interest you have to look at the purpose for which food is being provided to determine whether or not future sharing is allowed how is it and how is it not content neutral because you're not looking at the speech taxing there is no food service that is being allowed if it's being provided for any social service i doesn't matter if it's a church if it's a temple if it's a  determination well in our case we have a situation where our clients have got really much or case i'm asking a general hypothetical question well the hypothetical question about social service  relates to a group that sharing food for a political purpose in the city is classified that is a social service but the issue is is that when you're saying that you are banning food sharing as a social service the city has to make  discretionary determinations about why someone sharing food and if that and this this court's prior piano decision specifically talked about how sharing in this context like ordinance that exists and we're suing for damages with regard to the ordinance and there is a parker that exists so they didn't create a flat roll out b here is whether or not you can actually get permission and i think it's a it's a big question either under the ordinance or the park will and whether or not it is a blanket ban or not your what they did here all parks are zoned p it's a prohibited you should absolutely could not have gotten a zoning permit there the only park where you theoretically could have gotten one is training and park and i see my time is expired but the the last point i want to make just related to this is that a content neutral ban on on sharing food we could just look at the orlando got st vagabonds church which was the th circuit and where you didn't look at the purpose of sharing food you they just want case the reason that is distinguishable is being american number and the ordinance it's the numerical number and also that that there was no inquiry into the purpose it was all events that involved food  regard less of the reason why it's similar to the thomas versus city of chicago purpose trickiest where you know in a park they have they authorize permits for assemblies prettier than fifty people it's about depending on how the administrator feels so there was a fee theme in place they were just suggesting that maybe it didn't have to be so high ok all right thank you very much tensile mr park you have trained us thank you of good morning michael burke on behalf of the happily city of fort lauderdale the cities of position is that the district court properly applied this court's in bach decision in st bhagavan to the issues state that i'm aware of it has no formal membership bill formative documents no elected leaders no record of their members no written proof of members no by law it in fact doesn't even call the people who participate in  ambiguously what's the difference well again i would say say couple of things st as you say there was no analysis in that decision number one number two it probably most important y up you know unincorporated association is a broad term in a labor union which has a charter formal membership leaders urge that but i do or to the court that when it looks at fort lauderdale food not bombs and what the record is here that it find that fort lauderdale food not bombs whatever it is does not meet the definition of the  honor to continue on with your with your question this the ordinates here and i think it's important to know that the city there's two things of course that have been raised in the papers one is the  off of premises food distribution centers and so that's that that's where we come into a land development regulation as it relates to this provision of food at little or no cost at many locations not just parks or otherwise where they could be located in located in what is needed to do that so you have a zoning regulation secondly you have a park rule and i think it's very important that the court note that the park rule is not adopted by ordinance it is approved by the city commission but it is not an order it's not a law it is it is feeding us because there has been removed from the the social services ordinance of the city i don't think i made my i don't think i might question was clear let me just comment one more time if i decided to go that i wanted to distribute as part of a political protests where my claim was the government had misallocated its resources  your parks can i do that or if there are apps were bad so there is a park rule that hasn't been enforced that does speak to that issue your honor as you pointed out earlier with the exception by agreement businesses and social service use of parks can be arranged for instance during the kobe crisis i mean it's well known that city and county parks are used to provide social service vaccinations exception if under the park rule again under the ordinance doesn't exist at all there is nothing about food sharing in the current social services ordinance of the city now which brings me to combined with the factual context and environment in which it was undertaken lead to the conclusion that after now f and b engaged in a form of protective expression so they've already answered the st question whether or not this forum on the near side of constitutional protection they simply didn't get into the we digging down into the nd set of questions which include whether or not these ordinances and park rules violate the st amendment now it looks to me like you've gotten with sam and they're under some form of into media scrutiny because it looks to me just speaking for myself that the ordinance and the park rules are content neutral they speak broadly to a variety of social services not limited to food so i want you to assume though for the purpose of my question government interest not related to the suppression of any particular message or the and it must leave open ample alternative channels for communicating they the saying that the regulation itself does not seek to address any form of speech or expression so but by definition when you're going into it much like the clarke case that cited by this court in the vagabond case that prohibited camping in the on the national mall or lafayette park you know kidnapping was not looked at as expressive activity and so therefore when you're developing a regulation that doesn't relate to expressive activity you know you've certainly don't go into it with the same basis that that that you would for a for regulating expression and the standard that we're now apply and so that's of the way the district court looked at this and that is when you look at this it is only apparently in the case of fort lauderdale food not bombs that they because as you just quoted earlier from the the from  st generation this discourse decision is only when you combine all of these things that it does that that it it constitutes some form of protected expression so what i would say honor is that there are numerous places where they can engage in that activity they could if they had ever asked and there's nothing in the record to suggest that the park rule they asked to seek to enter into some agreement with the city because of their particular way of of sharing food with the public in the expression that involves that that the echoed have been arranged and still protect the the sanitation the garbage removal and all of if this is a classical licensing scheme it seems to some way where it's never been applied in so by its very nature what fort lauderdale food not bombs does is you have to look at what they actually do you have to have an as applied challenge for them to bring the claim it's it's you know surface providing food to people or clothing to people or medical care to people is not expressive activity if that's what the district courts as it's not by its very nature expressive activity in so it it can only really be judged under an as applied challenge still if you look at it facially yeah i mean it doesn't attempt to regulate expression of any kind in so yeah it doesn't  decide whether to enter into an agreement with an organization and again we're starting we're not starting with a clean slate as i said we're starting with a lot of this case is hasn't been applied so you know again we can you know what we're talking about here is truly how many angels can dance on the head of that pin because it is it is something that is not of been done it is it is it is  challenger all are it's it's my view that number one they were they being food for you can't even cite fort lauderdale food not bombs i mean it's not an entity who would you cite the plaintiffs who are in the us about just disability the plaintiffs are in the case they were never cited for the park rule or the words of what i would say in direct answer to your question is that of the the the issue is that they would have had to have sought something from the study provided some explanation to the city for that to for that to arise in an as applied way the only evidence in the record about any citation that is ever been issued during the three repaired time that we're talking about back in two thousand and fourteen member of two thousand and fourteen is that people bombs and none of the named individual plaintiffs were ever cited council during her argument indicated that some people receive citations they did for violating the ordinance in that or in the citation it mentioned the park rules the park rule if it were to be inforced do you know if juno if any of those individuals and i understand that of them are named plaintiffs or in this case right now but do you know if any of those individuals had to pay any park park was property zoned park were excluded from social services still to use you couldn't build a health care center in a park for instance or or do this the street hand park was zoned part of the it's in the city's downtown core it was a regional activity center and it allowed as a conditional use of the regional activity center outdoor feeding distribution centers which is what during that  you're absolutely i'm saying that they have they have never never been cited with and they wouldn't be cited with a violation of it the way it's a rule and so what happens is it's not an ordinance it's not a law it doesn't have any enforcement mechanism to it so the way in which your heart rule would be enforced is if you're violating a park rule someone from the city would go up to you and say you're violating that park rule you need to stop and if you don't stop and you keep doing it then eventually they'd probably have to get a law enforcement officer and give you a trespass warning and say if you won't stop violating the rule we're going to have to ask you to leave the park you know so so what happened here is i understand it in the record on november th a food distribution that they that food not bombs was engaged in was interrupted by the police and again my understanding is that that was pursu any actual injury in fact yes your honor again that the name the named organization as we say use the term members there is no official membership they in fact call them volunteers so if  disability under the park rule under the ordinance as i understand it during the three week period that it was in a fact there is as you say and we're describing in your question on november th a distribution by food not bombs was interrupted and as you say some folks who who claim to be affiliated with that it's easy if that's what it is were given citations i believe that under this court they were injured but because they're not a person but for number one for the for the order of arc rule they can't sue because it's never been applied to them that's what i say they're not applied to them i have a question about our rule and i'm now confused about the status of the art you said it was never our sound as a art and it was never subject to the park rule almost the this i do believe this park stranahan park would have been subject to the park rule if the park rule was going to be enforced the most of the city i believe all of the city's other parks i think it would be subject to the park rule if the park rule was going to be applied it was a park but the land it was on was zoned regional activity center which provided under this three week ordinance the ability to good you simply bear all social services correct and what i will say is that i think it relates to the individual playing taps there is no dispute that they were all present during the time when the police out i'm talking about the individual plaintiffs are they really were they did they come out of pocket any money no out of pocket expenses that's correct well even d if they weren't given a citation they were not they were not given a citation but i think as it relates to counsel's argument that that means that they didn't have standing that's not the legal standard for standing the question as it relates to the park rule for prospective injunctive relief is whether there's a credible threat of future sufficient to at a minimum confirm nominal damages and in that case it was an individual who was told that he had to leave and couldn't proselytize and just complete that is the completed twenty five paragraph twelve she references that lauren right was a food not bombs number cited at their demonstration when she was present and then we also separately have that arrest affidavit that references the park will in the to point this out because this is really not actually correct the city's assertion that it never enforced the park will and and one thing i will say is that when the city decided is the chief because now that workman's is no longer in place so moving forward but what happens today to the rule the rule has it has no basis and you can't be cited now and that's ok that's not correct but mr burke that is that the police can comment tell you you have to stop and you have to leave and if you don't you can be arrested for trespassing and you can be given a trespass warning which bans you from returning to the park in the future those are constitutional terms both as it relates to the st amendment having to see st amendment protected activity and having to leave a city park but you have a lot of full liberty interest in being present and so even if where there is absolutely no basis for knowing whether there is a denial or a grant there's there's no criteria there there is nothing under those circumstances there to be it could be a church group it could be  a temple it could be anyone who wants you can distribute food to the homeless and they will still go have to go out and seek a permit if they want to have distribute food at that particular location at that park right  so in a way that leaves it up to the whim of the licensing official to grant or deny and permit because the risk of the pression of speech of arbitrary enforcement of picking and choosing who is allowed to be in a park and share food and in terms of just a regulation would that be permissible i mean if it could potentially be a reasonable time place or manner restriction and one point i will say is that this is absolutely not merely taylor data it  applies to very small groups it's not a large group of that permit under any legal test that this court could apply its overbroad council was referencing zoning districts for me availability of basically opening a soup kitchen on private property is an example of an ample turn it but we're really talking about the regulation of public forums in this case and so we have to look at why is available in public  talking under fifty and that also includes police and members of the media that were present not not just the usual  the st case and re agree i think the st vagabonds case demonstrates why this ordinances and purple are unconstitutional in the documents case there were ample alternatives the permit restriction only applied to a two mile radius it was for all applied equally to all groups more than twenty five dollars and you could still get two permits a year in the two mile radius and then it was unlimited in all city parks if there was no restriction  and that is completely different from what we have here and it was not a discretionary permit scheme it was ministerial just says the supreme court requires it we with with that i respectfully