Alabama Appeals Court to Decide if Panhandling Laws Violate First Amendment

Alabama Fights to Revive Panhandling Bans After Unconstitutional Ruling

Alabama is making a legal push to reinstate its anti-panhandling laws, arguing that a federal court’s decision to block them is wrong. The state is asking an appeals court to overturn a ruling that two laws, one against begging and another against soliciting donations on highways, are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment.

Now, the state is taking its case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel will decide whether to keep the injunction in place.

A State Built on Tradition

Alabama’s lawyers are leaning on history. They argue that their anti-begging laws are part of a long-standing American tradition. In court filings, the state pointed to laws from its own past, including an 1823 statute prohibiting begging in the streets and an 1819 law in Mobile that allowed officials to force vagrants into labor to cover their costs. Alabama Deputy Solicitor General Robert Overing told the appeals panel that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v Bruen requires lower courts to look at historical traditions to determine if a law is constitutional.

“The Supreme Court said in Brown all the state has to [show] is persuasive evidence that its law is part of a long tradition of proscription,” Overing said, referencing a 2011 video game case. “If Alabama’s begging laws aren’t part of a long tradition then I don’t know what will qualify.” The state’s argument is that for centuries, society has regulated begging, not as speech, but as a public nuisance.

The Plaintiffs’ Counter: A Marketplace of Ideas

The plaintiffs are pushing back hard. They argue that the 11th Circuit has already settled this question. In a 1999 ruling, Smith v. City of Fort Lauderdale, the court decided that begging is indeed a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. West told the panel that there is no long-standing tradition of regulating begging as speech, but there is a long history of criminalizing poverty itself.

The speech at issue in this case is also communicating ideas and social messages about matters of public concern: hunger, poverty, homelessness, illness. If there’s any north star in First Amendment jurisprudence it’s this: the government has no power to interfere with the marketplace of ideas.

Micah West, Senior Staff Attorney, Southern Poverty Law Center

West highlighted the experience of one of the plaintiffs, Jonathan Singleton, who was arrested six times for holding signs that described his situation. One sign read, “Hungry. Help me. I’m homeless. This could be you.” The attorney argued that Singleton’s signs, like the video games at issue in the Brown case, communicate ideas and social messages about public concerns.

A Judge’s Skeptical Question

U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Luck, a Donald Trump appointee, questioned the state’s rigid distinction between begging and speech.

“Why is it assumed someone begging isn’t also communicating about the state of the economy currently or the way the homeless are treated?” Luck asked. “Why are those things not necessarily communicated by the homeless begging on the side of a particular roadway?”

Overing tried to clarify that while begging can be accompanied by protected speech, the act of begging itself is not necessarily protected. He argued that the state is simply asking for a recognition of a core exception based on history.

The Human Stakes

The 11th Circuit’s decision will determine whether begging is speech entitled to First Amendment protection.

The case is now in the hands of the 11th Circuit panel, which will review the lower court’s injunction. There is no immediate timeline for a decision, but the legal battle is far from over.

Keep reading