An Ohio trial court ruled that a city’s attempt to stop a church’s overnight homeless ministry violated both the First Amendment and Ohio’s constitutional protections for religious liberty.
The church’s April 2026 court victory came after a nearly three-year conflict with the city and its fire chief–one that included an appellate court’s intervention.
Because this was a trial court decision, it binds only the parties to the case. However, it offers persuasive guidance for churches and courts evaluating similar religious liberty disputes.
Specifically, religious liberty protections are strongest when churches tie their activities directly to their mission and beliefs–and also when they receive lesser treatment compared to similarly situated nonprofits and businesses.
Church connected overnight ministry to its mission and beliefs
In 2018, the church started a 24-hour ministry serving local homeless.
The church refers to the hours of 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. as an opportunity to “rest and refresh in the Lord.” The church viewed providing overnight shelter as a central expression of its religious mission to welcome strangers and care for people experiencing homelessness. Participants could rest, pray, fellowship, and listen to Scripture.
The pastor said requiring participants to leave without a biblically based reason “would violate his and the church’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Fire code inspections led to enforcement action
Multiple inspections between late 2023 and early 2024 resulted in citations.
The fire chief concluded the church’s overnight sleeping arrangements converted the church building’s “use occupancy” from a place of assembly to one combining a residential use.
Under the Ohio Fire Code, a change in a building’s use occupancy is prohibited unless it’s formally approved and complies with requirements tied to the new use. The code, while silent regarding the definition of a “sleeping area,” requires buildings with residential uses to possess an expensive automatic fire sprinkler system.
The fire chief cited the church for the occupancy use change and the absence of the fire sprinkler system.
Rejected accommodations and exceptions
The church could not afford the sprinkler system. Its efforts to receive a variance or exception were repeatedly rejected by the city, state, and fire officials, including:
- An application for a certificate of use and occupancy;
- An overnight “fire watch” by the church;
- A permanent exception or variance due to the sprinkler system’s costs, like ones granted to other local motels, shelters, and residential facilities.
Appeals court required strict scrutiny review
In July of 2024, the city pursued a permanent injunction to stop the overnight ministry.
At trial, the fire chief noted the church either needed to hire a professional to seek a variance from the state fire marshall, install the sprinkler system, find a new location for the overnight ministry (though no viable location existed within a 72-mile radius), or prohibit sleeping by participants.
The trial court favored the city. The church appealed.
Upon review, an Ohio appellate court determined the trial court incorrectly applied a “rational basis” legal standard for the case.
Because the church argued its free exercise rights under the US Constitution and the Ohio constitution’s “Conscience Clause” would be harmed by the injunction, the appellate court said a “strict scrutiny” standard should have applied instead.
Strict scrutiny is the highest constitutional standard of judicial review. Government officials must show a compelling governmental interest and prove they used the least restrictive means available.
The case was sent back to the trial court for a new ruling applying the higher legal standard.
Trial court found fire code enforcement violated religious liberty
With the case before it again, the trial court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the injunction would violate the church’s federal and state constitutional rights.
First, it noted the fire chief failed to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest, emphasizing the fire chief’s “decision to wait years before enforcing the fire code confirms no such interest exists.”
It also noted the fire chief granted exceptions to nearby motels, residential facilities, and shelters based on cost.
“(S)trict scrutiny doesn’t tolerate the existence of acceptable hazards for comparable secular activity while denying the same for a religious activity,” the trial court said.
Second, the trial court determined the fire chief failed to apply the fire code in the least restrictive way possible, noting the “multiple alternatives” available that could keep the overnight ministry open, including:
- a temporary exemption for the church while it sought a changed occupancy use;
- granting or helping the church receive a fire code variance;
- allowing the church to conduct a temporary overnight “fire watch”; and,
- grandfathering the church’s overnight ministry the same way other local nonprofits and businesses were.
Six takeaways for church leaders
- Connect ministries to governing documents. Ensure your church’s governing documents clearly connect ministries to sincerely held religious beliefs.
- Study similarly situated nonprofits and businesses nearby. For churches facing compliance-related complaints, review how comparable local nonprofit and for-profit entities have been treated.
- Research government zoning and code regulations. Learn about the codes and regulations affecting church property and uses of that property. Consult with qualified legal counsel to see how an activity might affect compliance.
- Accommodations and exceptions may be available. Municipalities may offer accommodations and exceptions based on circumstances. Meeting with officials may reveal helpful options.
- Evaluate insurance coverage. A change in the way a church uses its building likely affects property and general liability insurance coverage.
- Exhaust all options. Setbacks do not necessarily signal the end. Appeals like the one this church made led to a more favorable outcome.