In Scott v. City of Daytona Beach,
the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down several provisions of a city ordinance that restricted panhandling.
Daytona Beach, Florida, enacted Ordinance No. 19-27 in 2019.
The ordinance banned “aggressive panhandling” throughout the city, banned
traditional panhandling in numerous locations, and restricted certain methods
of panhandling.
Four men who regularly panhandled in Daytona Beach challenged
the ordinance both facially and as applied to them, arguing it violated
their First Amendment free-speech rights. After conducting a lengthy standing
analysis for each plaintiff and each challenged provision, the court addressed
the merits of the constitutional claims.
First, relying on existing precedent, the Court reaffirmed
that panhandling is protected speech under the First Amendment. The Court next determined that the challenged provisions were “content-based” rather than
“content-neutral” regulations, meaning that the ordinance was subject to strict
scrutiny, which is the highest standard of constitutional review, requiring a
compelling government interest pursued through the least speech-restrictive
means.
To satisfy strict scrutiny, the city argued that the
ordinance was necessary to advance the compelling government interests of
protecting public health and promoting traffic safety. While the Court acknowledged
that both can be compelling government interests, it concluded that the
ordinance was not narrowly tailored to achieve those objectives. The Court also
noted that the city could pursue both interests through less speech-restrictive
means, including the enforcement of existing laws such as disorderly conduct or
trespassing.
As a result, the Court struck down those portions of the ordinance that were found unconstitutional. The Court also
upheld an award of $80,000 in damages to the plaintiffs.
Note that this decision covers the 11th Circuit and not the 7th Circuit in which Illinois is located. However, the content-based versus content-neutral analysis comes from U.S. Supreme Court precedent that applies to all states.
Post Authored by Luigi Laudando, Ancel Glink
