A federal judge rejected a Las Vegas ordinance passed in July that made it illegal to feed homeless people in city parks. A week after this late November ruling, the city closed Huntridge Circle Park, which stands at the center of the controversy.

In a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), U.S. District Judge Robert Jones found the ordinance unconstitutional, enjoining local authorities from further enforcement. According to the judge, while the city had a legitimate right to enact laws that seek to maintain the safety and security of public areas, that right did not extend to criminalizing the act of giving food to indigent people. As a result of this ruling, the city of Las Vegas has pledged to reframe the anti-feeding law to reflect rigorous constitutional standards.

The judge's decision came after months of civil disobedience and bitter exchanges, in and out of court.

Less than two weeks after passage of the contentious city ordinance, Elizabeth Monk, a local radio station traffic reporter, was cited and threatened with arrest for handing out doughnuts to homeless people across the street from City Hall, in brazen defiance of the newly-enacted law.

The city's mayor, Oscar Goodman, disparaged the reporter's actions as a "publicity stunt." But Monk's display was only the first in a string of similar acts which on a whole seemed less like stunts and more like the conscientious response of a concerned citizenry.

Opposition to the ordinance quickly gained momentum following news of Monk's ordeal, drawing numerous vocal advocates. By November, at least five people had been issued summonses.

One of them, Patrick Band, took his ticket to a municipal judge, who swiftly dismissed the summons as unconstitutionally vague. This decision sparked renewed interest and increased vigor on both sides of the debate over the law, setting the backdrop for ACLU's day in court.

In arguments before Judge Jones in late November, ACLU of Nevada attorney Lee Rowland argued that the law effectively denied protections under the first and fourteenth amendments, which provide for the right to expressive action and equal protection of the law, respectively.

Las Vegas City Attorney, Bradford Jerbic, maintained that these and other protections were not available to those cited for breaking the law. In opposing the plaintiffs' request that the judge grant an injunction, the city claimed that the law was "neutral" and intended to "further a number of substantial government interests," including "maximizing the availability of social services to the homeless, the protection of public health [and] city parks and the prevention of crime in residential areas."

The indigent "are left behind without transportation and as a result they end up in neighborhoods, not only leaving debris behind, but sometimes sleeping on people's yards, sometimes defecating," Jerbic said.

Judge Jones was quick to point out the inherent flaws of this thinking. For one, if the indigent had no way of leaving city parks following distribution of meals, as the city alleged, how was it that they could get there in the first place? More importantly, if the city's concern was with homeless people sleeping on private property or leaving debris, why didn't the city enact laws to address these specific actions?

The thrust of these questions was, of course, whether or not the anti-feeding law unfairly targeted an already underprivileged class of people. Judge Jones was asking whether the city had the right to address an immediate and easily identifiable nuisance with a blanket law.

On Nov. 24, mere days after Judge Jones' decision against the city, a scuffle between two homeless men at the Huntridge Circle Park ended after one of the men was stabbed to death. The argument ensued after one of the men was found destroying sprinklers at the park, causing others to worry about the possibility of renewed antagonism from the surrounding community.

The incident has rallied supporters of the law, who have long complained about the growing homeless problem and are now quick to point to what many consider a faulty legal ruling as a cause for the man's killing.

On November 28, Doug Selby, of the city of Las Vegas, closed the park until further notice. This move that has even proponents of the anti-feeding ordinance wondering.

Selby indicated that safety concerns and not the recent court ruling were the impetus for the decision to close the park, in which the city had recently invested upwards of $1.5 million to renovate. But homeless advocates, who view the fight over the park as central to the much larger fight over homeless rights, were not so sure.

On December 4, four people were arrested after trespassing in the park in protest of the its closing. Joe Sacco, son of a woman who had been feeding homeless people in the park daily for many months, wore an American flag on his shoulders as he was being detained.