Background
In 2019, the City of Daytona Beach enacted an ordinance substantially restricting panhandling to address concerns about safety, sanitation, and aggressive solicitation. Four plaintiffs who regularly panhandle in the city sued under Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code, alleging 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 injury in fact 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, and conduct restrictions, they lacked standing for others where no objective chill was proven. On the merits, the court determined the ordinance was content-based because it applied only to requests for charitable donations. Consequently, the provisions were subject to strict scrutiny and failed because they were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Finally, the court held the district court erred by issuing a universal injunction that bound the entire city rather than just the parties to the case.
What it means going forward
The ruling limits the scope of the injunction against the Daytona Beach panhandling ordinance to only those provisions where plaintiffs have standing, while striking down those specific provisions as unconstitutional. It also requires the district court to reconsider the scope of the injunction to avoid a universal remedy.