In a recent case out of Fall River, Massachusetts, the state supreme court found a panhandling law so riddled with constitutional problems as to require entire invalidation. Plaintiffs, each a homeless person who sometimes panhandled to meet their basic needs, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against a state law that criminalized signaling to a motor vehicle on a public way “for the purpose of solicitating any alms, contribution or subscription or selling of any merchandise,” but expressly permitted the same conduct undertaken for other purposes or by a nonprofit organization. They alleged violations of free speech rights under the First Amendment and state constitution.
Continue Reading Massachusetts Supreme Court Strikes Down State Panhandling Law
Tenth Circuit Strikes Down Oklahoma City Median Restrictions
Last week, the federal Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that an Oklahoma City law prohibiting people from remaining on street medians violated the First Amendment. The law was challenged by a diverse group, including panhandlers, minority political parties, and even joggers.
In 2015, apparently in response to concerns regarding panhandling, Oklahoma City passed a law that prohibited individuals from sitting, standing, or remaining in street medians throughout the city. Although the law was motivated by concerns regarding panhandlers, the city sought to justify the law with the presentation of safety statistics regarding pedestrians in street medians. A group of plaintiffs sued the city, and it revised the ordinance in 2017 to limit the law’s coverage to medians along streets with speed limits of 40 miles per hour or greater. Again, the city justified its amended law with safety information.
Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Strikes Down Oklahoma City Median Restrictions
Tenth Circuit Denies Rehearing In Utah Panhandling Case, Affirms Finding Of Content Neutrality
Last week, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying a motion by the plaintiff in the case of Evans v. Sandy City for an en banc rehearing. In ruling on the motion, the court issued a revised opinion. In the revised opinion, the court reaffirmed that Sandy City, Utah’s prohibition on sitting
Utah City’s Median Restriction Found Content Neutral, Constitutional
Earlier this summer, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Sandy City, Utah’s restriction on sitting or standing in a street median of less than 36 inches in width met constitutional muster. Although the regulation was principally aimed at addressing panhandling activity, the court found the regulation to be content neutral, affirming an earlier district court ruling in the case. The court’s decision appears to offer an avenue for local governments to address safety concerns associated with panhandling, without treading on constitutionally unstable ground.
The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert resulted in the invalidation of many restrictions on panhandling in municipalities around the United States. To get around the legal defects associated with panhandling prohibitions, municipalities—like Sandy City—have adopted general restrictions on sitting, standing, and remaining in street medians to achieve the same ends.
Continue Reading Utah City’s Median Restriction Found Content Neutral, Constitutional
Louisiana Town’s “Panhandler ID” Law Struck Down
This week, a federal district court in Louisiana granted a motion for summary judgment invalidating the City of Slidell’s law requiring panhandlers to register and wear identification before soliciting donations. In a lengthy but thorough order, the court found the city’s law, which applied only to individuals seeking to solicit donations of money or services, content based and unconstitutional, and issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law.
The backstory of Slidell’s “panhandler ID” law starts in 2015. Since then, the city received 70 complaints relating to panhandling and solicitation, but only 14 were “connected to an identifiable individual.” Because of the difficulty of tracking down panhandlers who were violating city laws, the city council passed an ordinance containing certain registration and identification requirements. Specifically, the ordinance required individuals to complete an application at least 48 hours prior to panhandling. To complete the application, a person was to physically appear at the police department between 9:00 and 5:00 on a weekday, fill out the written application (which required listing an address, telephone number, email, and other identifying information), and show a photo identification. After a group of indigent individuals sued the city over the law, the city removed the 48-hour waiting period and required issuance of a permit for up to 72 hours of panhandling following filing of a complete application. The 72-hour permit can be extended for up to a year on certain conditions.
Continue Reading Louisiana Town’s “Panhandler ID” Law Struck Down
Tampa Panhandling Ban Found Unconstitutional
Last Friday, a federal district court in Florida found that the City of Tampa’s restriction on requests for donation or payment—aimed at preventing panhandling and solicitation on city streets—violated the First Amendment. The court’s decision follows on several other decisions around the country that have invalidated bans on solicitation of donations on the grounds that such bans are not content neutral.
Continue Reading Tampa Panhandling Ban Found Unconstitutional
ABA Program to Review Recent Panhandling, Solicitation Cases
The American Bar Association Sections of State and Local Government and Civil Rights and Social Justice are teaming up for a webinar on June 14, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. ET to discuss recent court decisions on the sticky issue of panhandling and solicitation. Since the Supreme Court decided Reed v. Town of Gilbert, many
Massachusetts Court: City’s Panhandling Ban is Content Based, Unconstitutional
Following post-Reed decisions in other courts, the federal district court in Massachusetts has found Lowell’s ban on aggressive panhandling content based and unconstitutional.
McLaughlin v. City of Lowell, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 6453144 (D. Mass. Oct. 23, 2015)
Another Anti-Panhandling Ordinance Bites the Dust
The post-Reed assault on panhandling bans continued when a federal court in Massachusetts held that the City of Worcester’s ordinance prohibiting aggressive panhandling was content based and unconstitutional. In 2014, in an opinion authored by retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that Worcester’s anti-panhandling ordinance was content neutral and constitutional. Following Reed, the Supreme Court granted a cert petition in the case, vacated the First Circuit decision, and remanded the matter back to the court of appeals. The First Circuit then vacated its opinion and judgment and remanded to the district court for further consideration in light of Reed. Back at the district court, the ordinances—which defined “begging” or “panhandling” as “asking for money or objects of value with the intention that the money or object be transferred at that time and at that place” and also defined “aggressive manner”—were found to be content based, since they applied to particular speech based on the content of the speech. The court went on to find that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored, as it was not the least restrictive means of achieving the governmental interest at stake.
Continue Reading Another Anti-Panhandling Ordinance Bites the Dust
On Second Try, Springfield Anti-Panhandling Ordinance Rejected Again
Following the Seventh Circuit’s invalidation of Springfield’s anti-panhandling ordinance, the city amended its municipal code’s provisions regarding panhandling. The new code provisions prohibited panhandling “[p]anhandling while at any time before, during, or after the solicitation knowingly approaching within five feet of the solicited person,” and defined “panhandling” as a “vocal appeal” for an immediate donation.