Background
In 2019, the City of Daytona Beach enacted Ordinance No. 19-27 to address complaints about aggressive panhandling and its impact on safety and sanitation. The ordinance broadly restricted panhandling, defined as begging or making a demand for an immediate donation of money or value. Four men who regularly panhandle in the city sued under Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code, claiming the ordinance violated their First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, enjoining enforcement of the challenged provisions and awarding damages.
The court’s reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit first addressed standing, holding that plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each specific provision they challenge. The court found that while the plaintiffs had standing to challenge provisions regarding aggressive panhandling, certain location-based bans near transit stops and intersections, and panhandling after dark, they failed to show an objective chill for provisions regarding ATMs, parking lots, restrooms, schools, and specific conduct like touching or using profanity. On the merits, the court determined the challenged provisions were content-based because they applied only to requests for charitable donations. Consequently, the court applied strict scrutiny and found the city failed to prove the restrictions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.
What it means going forward
The ruling invalidates specific sections of Daytona Beach’s panhandling ordinance while leaving other sections intact due to lack of standing. It also requires the district court to narrow the injunction to apply only to the plaintiffs who have standing, rather than issuing a universal ban on enforcement.