A federal judge denied a request on Tuesday from two healthcare nonprofits seeking to block Phoenix from enforcing restrictions on food distribution and medical treatment in city parks. The court found that the organizations had not shown a likelihood of success on their argument that the activities constitute expressive conduct under the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Diane J. Humetewa denied the preliminary-injunction motion filed by Circle the City and Valle del Sol Community Health. Humetewa also canceled a hearing that had been scheduled for Wednesday.
“The Court disagrees that Plaintiffs’ provision of medical care or food to the unhoused is inherently expressive conduct under the First Amendment,” Humetewa wrote.
The order leaves Phoenix’s Medical Treatment and Food Distribution in Parks Ordinance enforceable against the two organizations while their underlying lawsuit continues. The organizations filed the case, Circle the City et al. v. City of Phoenix et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on June 15 and submitted their motion for preliminary injunction the following day.
Circle the City provides street medicine and other healthcare services to homeless residents, while Valle del Sol operates harm-reduction programs that include syringe services. Their lawsuit argues that the ordinance violates the First Amendment by restricting charitable food distribution and medical care while exempting other activities involving food or medical assistance.
The plaintiffs also contend that the city’s permit system operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint and that Arizona law authorizing harm-reduction programs preempts the ordinance’s restrictions on syringe services.
Humetewa found that the nonprofits had not demonstrated that observers would understand their provision of food and medical care as communicating their stated message that every person deserves dignity and access to basic services. Humetewa cited the absence of signs, literature, or other accompanying communications in the record.
Humetewa also wrote that the First Amendment gives governments greater latitude to regulate conduct than spoken or written expression.
Attorney Will Knight of the National Homelessness Law Center said the plaintiffs were disappointed with the ruling and were reviewing their legal options. Phoenix declined to comment on the decision, citing the pending litigation.
The Phoenix City Council approved the ordinance on May 6, and it took effect on June 7. Individuals and organizations must obtain a Parks Services Permit before conducting charitable food distributions or providing covered medical treatment in a city park.
Phoenix will issue no more than two per eligible park each month. The ordinance requires covered medical services to be provided under the supervision of a licensed professional inside an enclosed tent or mobile medical vehicle located on a parking lot or other approved hardscape area.
The ordinance also prohibits the sale, distribution, or exchange of syringes or needles, needle-exchange programs, and the distribution of needle or intramuscular naloxone in city parks. Violations constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The ordinance contains exemptions, including those for first responders, assistance provided during emergencies, aid given to family members, water and electrolyte distribution, educational outreach, and private gatherings where food is served to participants.
Phoenix says the framework is intended to keep parks clean, safe, and accessible while connecting homeless residents with established service providers. The city encourages residents to support organizations participating in its Healthy Giving program.
The Humetewa ruling follows a different result in a parallel challenge brought by St. Herman’s Table, an Orthodox Christian ministry that distributes meals to homeless residents at Cave Creek Park.
U.S. District Judge Krissa Lanham granted St. Herman’s Table and its founder, Lance Brace, a temporary restraining order on June 10, finding that they were likely to succeed on their First Amendment Free Exercise claim. Lanham extended the order on June 16 until she rules on their preliminary injunction motion.
The temporary order prohibits Phoenix from enforcing the ordinance against St. Herman’s Table and Brace. It does not apply to other organizations.
AZ Free News reported in June that St. Herman’s Table distributes meals, water, Bibles, and hygiene supplies each week as part of its religious ministry.
The ordinance and Phoenix’s handling of homelessness have also drawn political criticism. In May, Arizona Republican Party Chairman Sergio Arellano joined radio host James T. Harris during a visit to the downtown area known as “The Zone.”
Arellano criticized city leadership and praised an unidentified faith-based nonprofit that the Arizona Republican Party said received no taxpayer funding. Harris regularly conducts homeless outreach through The Bridge for Community Services, where he serves as corporate vice president and executive director. The party’s post did not identify the organization accompanying Harris, and The Bridge is not a party to either federal lawsuit.
Humetewa’s ruling addresses the request for immediate relief filed by Circle the City and Valle del Sol. Their broader challenge to the ordinance remains pending before the federal court.
A local church filed suit against the city of Phoenix for its new ordinance requiring permits to feed and provide medical care to the homeless in public parks.
The city ordinance, “Phoenix Medical Treatment and Food Distribution in Parks,” impacts any individual or organization with a charitable or humanitarian purpose from distributing food or medical care to the general public, not just the homeless — though it is those seeking to provide resources to the homeless that are most impacted by the policy.
The city emphasized the prohibition on the sale, distribution, or exchange of syringes or needles, needle exchange programs, and distribution of needle/intramuscular naloxone in public communications discussing the new ordinance.
The ordinance exempts those distributing food or medical care for non-charitable purposes, such as food distributed at events not open to the general public, like birthday parties, or medical aid rendered to address a sudden medical event. Water and electrolyte beverage distribution was also exempted from the permitting process.
The council passed the ordinance last month, and it took effect last wek week. Starting Friday, the city provides a limited number of permits: two per month, per park made available on a tri-annual basis. The two permits combine both food and medical, not two food and two medical permits.
Those seeking permits must submit the names, food handler certificates, and medical certifications for all providing food and/or medical care, along with proof of a $2 million liability insurance policy.
Lance Brace, a Phoenix real estate agent, and his nonprofit St. Herman’s Table filed the lawsuit challenging the ordinance through Provident Law in the Arizona District Court this week.
St. Herman’s Table provides a meal, water, Bibles, and small hygiene products to the homeless at Cave Creek Park at Cactus once a week. The nonprofit is part of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Orthodox Church.
Brace argued that the ordinance violates the First Amendment and the Arizona Free Exercise of Religion Act, claiming that it extends favorable treatment to secular activities, like wedding and birthday parties, by not holding them to the same permitting requirements as religious organizations engaging in charitable endeavors.
Advocates for the city ordinance say the homeless have made the public parks unsafe for children and families.
In its presentation of the ordinance during a formal council meeting last month, the city included photos taken by city staff and submitted by residents as examples of the pervasive problems occurring in park systems due to unfettered services rendered to the homeless: mass crowding, littering, drug usage, drug paraphernalia, and contamination with biological hazards.
As an example of the safety hazards presented by charitable organization presence without government oversight, officials referenced several recent city cleanup efforts that yielded the collection of hundreds of needles at South Mountain Park and Preserve, John F. & Mary P. Long Homestead Park, and Margaret T. Hance Park.
Critics of the city ordinance argued that the charitable services shouldn’t be limited by a permitting process due to the outsized needs of the homeless community.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The principal who went viral in the Valley for barring parents from attending eighth grade graduation due to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity played a key role in banning a parent from another school campus in violation of the First Amendment.
This week wasn’t the first time that Bronwyn Sternberg, principal at the Cecil Shamley School in the Tempe Elementary School District (TESD), has kept parents off campus for reportedly political reasons.
In February 2020, Sternberg participated in the ban of a parent, Rebecca Hartzell, from the premises of Marana Unified School District’s Dove Mountain School. Sternberg was an associate principal at the time, and identified in a Supreme Court filing as an official who coordinated Hartzell’s removal. The Arizona District Court ruled in March that district officials had unconstitutionally retaliated against Hartzell for her speech, consistent with a prior finding in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A jury awarded Hartzell $200,000.
Now, a little over six years later, Sternberg has taken another action to keep parents off campus in relation to a highly politicized issue.
On Wednesday, Sternberg informed parents that they wouldn’t be permitted to attend their child’s eighth grade graduation to prevent any additional ICE detainments.
Immigration authorities detained a Cecil Shamley School mother and her son off school property on Tuesday. This prompted Sternberg to call off all outside attendance to the promotion ceremony, which occurred on Thursday.
ICE issued a statement explaining that it arrested the mother, 47-year-old Margoth Del Pilar Paredes-Ortiz of Ecuador, on referral by Border Patrol for suspicion of illegal alien smuggling. Paredes-Ortiz was subject to a removal order from an immigration judge issued last March.
Per ICE, Paredes-Ortiz voluntarily requested that her son, also an illegal alien from Ecuador with a final order of removal, be returned with her to Ecuador.
Federal law requires equal public school access to all children regardless of immigration status.
Paredes-Ortiz and her son were taken to a Texas facility for deportation proceedings.
Sternberg said that closing the graduation ceremony off to parents and other guests was a matter of safety. Sternberg said students from the sixth and seventh grades would be allowed to attend instead, and that parents would receive a recorded video of the promotion ceremony.
“This change may be disappointing for some families; however, we feel it is truly in the best interest of our students and staff. I appreciate the partnership, kind words, and questions that I have received from our parents. Thank you for your cooperation as we prioritize our students,” said Sternberg.
Libs of TikTok shared a copy of the letter to parents in a viral post.
BREAKING: @TempeElementary Principal Bronwyn Sternberg sent a letter to families informing them that parents and guests will NOT be allowed to attend students' graduation after a reported illegal alien parent and her child were arrested by ICE near the school. pic.twitter.com/TGRxTFsqcT
Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton (AZ-04) visited the detained family and indicated he was working to secure their release. Stanton and Arizona’s other elected Democrats have given illegal aliens constituent privileges and prioritized them in their constituent work.
I’m sickened that a Tempe student and their parent were violently detained by ICE and taken to a detention center in Texas just before his 8th grade promotion.
Terrorizing a child, ripping them from their community, and forcing them into detention is beyond cruel. It is inhumane… https://t.co/n7i1jv9J1W
— Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (@RepYassAnsari) May 28, 2026
Shamley School students conducted a walkout from school in protest of the Paredes-Ortiz family’s deportation.
Sternberg became principal of Cecil Shamley School in 2023.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Over the past three years, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has been executing a political agenda.
She has refused to defend state laws—while going out of her way to attack common-sense federal policies—simply on the grounds that she personally disagrees.
She’s failed to uphold our values. She’s destroyed common sense. And she has pursued an extreme political agenda to appease her party leadership—all the while undermining President Trump’s efforts to make America great again.
Principled, hard-working Arizonans have paid the price for her politically motivated dereliction of duty.
I’m running for Attorney General because Arizona desperately needs a top law enforcement officer who will uphold our laws and fairly represent Arizona families.
As Senate President, I’ve taken part in over 110 lawsuits to ensure Arizona’s laws and interests are defended when the Attorney General wouldn’t act. We have led an unprecedented campaign to protect Arizonans, and our action has provided unparalleled experience.
I’ve defended Arizona’s sex offender registration laws. The case in question, Doe v. Sheridan, argues whether our state can mandate convicted sex offenders to keep law enforcement informed, including reporting online identifiers used on social media and other platforms, so officers can investigate crimes and prevent future harms. The Arizona Legislature stepped up and successfully defended the sex offender registration laws in court after the Arizona attorney general failed to carry out her responsibility to do so.
I’ve defended the integrity of girls’ sports. As Senate President, I’ve led the defense of Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act in federal court against special interests seeking to allow boys to play in girls’ sports. We’ve taken this case all the way to the Supreme Court, and we’re waiting on a major ruling from the nation’s high court on similar cases that could affect Arizona’s law.
I’ve defended laws dealing with the First Amendment. One of those cases was Chiles v. Salazar, where the Arizona Legislature joined a challenge to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban. Another was in NRA v. Vullo, where we challenged whether the State of New York could threaten banks with adverse regulatory actions if they provided services to the National Rifle Association.
I’ve defended laws related to the Second Amendment. One of those cases was Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, defending American firearms manufacturers from being held liable from frivolous lawsuits from foreign entities. Another was Miller v. Bonta, challenging California’s ban on the manufacture, distribution, importation, and possession of various firearms.
I’ve defended laws related to the Eighth Amendment. Under my leadership, the Arizona Senate filed briefs to allow cities to disband homelessness encampments, winning at the Supreme Court.
I’ve defended the state’s right to carry out justice regarding capital punishment.
I’ve defended election integrity. We intervened to defend Arizona’s ability to make sure only citizens are voting in our elections.
I’ve defended our state against radical environmentalists. In Petersen v. EPA, we sued the Biden-led EPA to overturn unattainable environmental standards that punished job creators, and detrimentally impacted America’s power grid. We joined a lawsuit to block a California rule forcing trucking drivers to use less efficient battery-powered vehicles, which would have further increased the costs of everyday items.
I’ve defended our state against unconstitutional executive overreach. We challenged then-President Biden’s executive order forcing federal contractors and their employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
And I’ve defended our state against rampant government encroachment on our lands.
Thanks to my involvement in these—and dozens of other legal efforts—I’ve been called Arizona’s de facto Attorney General, stepping in where our liberal Attorney General has shamefully abdicated her role. Our engagement in these matters has allowed me to serve our great citizens and provide leadership where none existed. It’s time for Arizona to once again have an Attorney General committed to serving all the people—not just partisan special interests.
The Goldwater Institute has called on Arizona’s largest school district to immediately repeal a policy that prohibits “personal attacks” on school board members, staff, students, or members of the public during public comment periods, arguing the rule unconstitutionally silences criticism while allowing praise.
In a formal letter sent to Mesa Public Schools Governing Board President Courtney Davis, the Goldwater Institute contends the policy constitutes blatant viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution.
The Mesa Public Schools Governing Board adopted this policy in July 2024, banning any “personal attacks” during the public comment portion of board meetings. According to the Goldwater Institute, the rule effectively permits speakers to praise or thank board members, administrators, and teachers by name, but forbids any negative, critical, or challenging comments directed at the same individual—no matter how factual or civil the critique may be.
“This prohibition punishes a specific viewpoint insofar as it prohibits ‘attacks,’” the letter states. “It is not, then, the speaking about Board members, staff, students, or members of the public in general that the Governing Board is preventing, but only speech about those groups from a certain viewpoint. That is unconstitutional.”
Adam Shelton, an attorney for the Goldwater Institute, who wrote the letter, told The Center Square, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that viewpoint discrimination is almost always unconstitutional.”
The Goldwater Institute became involved after concerned Mesa parents contacted the organization, requesting a review of the policy. Shelton noted that the board reads the restriction aloud before every public comment session.
“The policy has chilled the speech of some of the parents,” Shelton added. “They’re afraid to speak out and bring problems before the school board. These parents are concerned about being banned or punished for making negative comments about school board officials.”
Public comment periods at school board meetings serve as a vital democratic function, allowing parents and community members to bring forward issues, including complaints about teachers, policies, or administrative decisions. The Goldwater Institute argues that Mesa’s policy undermines this purpose by making it nearly impossible to discuss real problems without naming those responsible.
Federal courts have repeatedly struck down similar policies. In Ison v. Madison Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit invalidated a rule banning “antagonistic” or “abusive” speech personally directed at board members as impermissible viewpoint discrimination. More recently, in Moms for Liberty – Brevard County, FL v. Brevard Public Schools, the Eleventh Circuit ruled against a prohibition on “abusive” comments, noting that such policies effectively require “happy-talk”—allowing positive comments while suppressing negative or challenging ones.
The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that restricting “personally directed” speech obstructs the core purpose of school board meetings: educating officials and the community about legitimate concerns. The court observed that a parent complaining about a math teacher’s instructional methods would struggle to explain the issue without referencing the teacher.
The Goldwater Institute warned that maintaining the policy exposes the district to potentially costly litigation. Following its victory in the Brevard case, Moms for Liberty secured a settlement requiring the Florida school district to pay nearly $600,000 in attorney fees, costs, and expenses.
In addition to federal constitutional concerns, the letter highlights that the policy likely violates Article II, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides even broader protections for free speech than the First Amendment.
The Goldwater Institute has requested that the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board promptly amend its policy by removing the prohibition on “personal attacks.” The organization expressed willingness to work cooperatively with the board to bring the rules into compliance with constitutional standards and noted that all options remain under consideration if the policy is not revised.
No response has been received from the Board President, Courtney Davis, or the governing board as of the time of publication.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
