New bans on panhandling in medians spark debate over free speech rights

This story was originally published by Stateline.

Despite court rulings that soliciting money is protected as free speech, some cities and at least one state are considering new restrictions on panhandling in traffic medians, arguing it’s a safety hazard.

New Mexico’s Democratic governor this year and an Arizona Republican lawmaker last year proposed statewide bans on asking for money on street medians, though neither passed. Wilmington, North Carolina, passed a similar ordinance this year, and Roanoke, Virginia, has stepped up enforcement of a law that has been on the books since last year. Advocates for homeless people have sued over a similar law in Jacksonville, Florida.

A handful of cities are turning to incentives as a solution: Oklahoma City, where courts struck down a panhandling ban, offers city cleanup work to panhandlers. Philadelphia and Fairfax County, Virginia, have similar programs, and Albuquerque, New Mexico’s largest city, recently reinstated one.

The efforts have grown amid a nationwide homelessness crisis, with more people visibly soliciting money in the streets, and higher pedestrian deaths compared with before the pandemic. Backers of the bans argue that they promote safety, but opponents say that there’s no proof such restrictions protect pedestrians and that they infringe on free speech rights. Court rulings have been mixed.

Many of the newest laws or proposed laws banning pedestrians on narrow medians followed one in Sandy City, Utah, which a federal appeals court upheld in 2019. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2020 declined to take up the case, leaving the law in place. The ordinance makes it “illegal for any individual to sit or stand, in or on any unpaved median, or any median of less than 36 inches for any period of time.”

In New Mexico — which has the highest rate of pedestrian fatalities of any state, according to a Governors Highway Safety Association report based on 2023 data — Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham this year proposed a state law banning pedestrians on narrow medians. Some cities in New Mexico, including Santa Fe and Española, already have such bans. Benjamin Baker, a public safety adviser to the governor, said it makes sense to keep panhandlers and others off medians near cars.

Like other proponents of the bans, Baker acknowledged there’s no clear connection between panhandling and pedestrian deaths. But he said it makes intuitive sense to ban seemingly dangerous activities such as standing on narrow medians in heavy traffic.

“Exercising free speech is not the issue,” said Baker, who added that panhandling from a safe area is fine.

But lawmakers from her own party declined to sponsor Lujan Grisham’s bill. And during a special session on public safety in July called by the governor, the bill’s sole sponsor was Republican state Sen. Mark Moores of Albuquerque.

“The panhandling just got out of control across New Mexico and primarily Albuquerque,” said Moores. “It’s just unsafe. People are running back and forth through heavy traffic. We have to balance their right to free speech with public safety.”

Despite her legislative defeat, Lujan Grisham continued to lobby for her proposed bill in a series of town halls across the state in July, saying she wants a statewide version of the city of Española’s 2022 law banning loitering on narrow medians.

Efforts Elsewhere

The American Civil Liberties Union has opposed a new law in Bangor, Maine, passed in June, that bans pedestrians from medians less than 6 feet wide in high-speed traffic areas.

Courts have overturned some similar laws. In 2020, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Oklahoma City ban, ruling the city had failed to prove a clear safety problem because of pedestrians in street medians. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case, leaving the ruling in place.

Scout Katovich, an attorney at the ACLU’s Trone Center for Justice and Equality, said pedestrian safety is not a credible motive for the recent legislation.

“Everybody’s talking about how we have to get rid of these panhandlers, ‘We don’t want to see unhoused people,’ and then they turn around and say this is about safety. That’s not going to fly,” Katovich said.

In Roanoke, Virginia, a ban on panhandling on medians less than 4 feet wide has been on the books since last year and enforcement is on the rise, with about a hundred $25 citations issued since spring, said Roanoke Police Capt. Andrew Pulley. Larger fines or jail sentences could follow for repeat offenders, he said.

Police have gotten complaints about panhandlers, and the city tries to respond to them, Pulley said. Issuing citations deters panhandling, he said, but the effect is usually temporary.

“It’s like speeding. When we’re there, it’s better, but you go away and come back and it’s there again.”

In Arizona, Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh, who had sponsored anti-panhandling legislation in 2015, last year introduced a bill targeting panhandling on traffic medians. A committee approved the bill along party lines, but it didn’t reach the Senate floor.

A Legal Challenge

In Florida, the Homeless Voice, a newspaper that employs homeless people to distribute it on the street and ask for donations, sued the city of Jacksonville over its new law banning panhandling in high-traffic areas, which prevented many of its workers from operating in the city.

Workers could make up to about $100 a day, which was often enough to split a hotel room or even pay rent in some areas, said Sean Cononie, publisher of the Homeless Voice.

“We’re going backwards in this country,” Cononie said. “People think homeless people are lazy, and they are not lazy. This is hard work.”

The Jacksonville Homeless Voice staff is down from 90 recently to eight, he said, as police have warned his workers to stop asking drivers for money on the street.

In the Jacksonville case, federal Judge Timothy Corrigan allowed the city to continue enforcing the law during an upcoming trial, noting that the city offered to suspend enforcement on public sidewalks and enforce it only on medians. Corrigan called it a “clash between First Amendment rights and public safety concerns,” but did not say how he might rule.

In court papers, Jacksonville defended the ban, saying it’s motivated by concern for pedestrian safety and that the city respects the Homeless Voice’s right to ask for money on sidewalks but not “in and on the city’s busiest roadways” without a required permit.