Municipal Code Validity – Panhandling

Listen to this article

Civil

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Officials: EASTERBROOK, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges

Municipal Code Validity – Panhandling

No. 13-3581 Don Norton and Karen Otterson v. City of Springfield, Illinois

Municipal ordinance prohibiting panhandling in downtown historic district is not a form of content discrimination. Applies analysis under Reed V. Gilbert, 135 S. ct. 2218 (2015).

“Reed understands content discrimination differently. It wrote that “regulation of speech is content based if a law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.” 135 S. Ct. at 2227 (emphasis added). Springfield’s ordinance regulates “because of the topic discussed”. The Town of Gilbert, Arizona, justified its sign ordinance in part by contending, as Springfield also does, that the ordinance is neutral with respect to ideas and viewpoints. The majority in Reed found that insufficient: “A law that is content based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government’s benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of ‘animus toward the ideas contained’ in the regulated speech.” 135 S. Ct. at 2228. It added: “a speech regulation targeted at specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter.” Id. at 2230.”

Reversed and Remanded

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.