The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that a Michigan law that criminalizes panhandling is unconstitutional because it violates free speech rights. Since the beginning of the Herbert Hoover administration in 1929, this Michigan law (MCL750.167(1)(h) has made it a criminal misdemeanor for any person “found begging in a public place.”
Enforcing this law, the Grand Rapids police department issued over 400 citations for its violation from 2008 through 2011. Among those arrested were James Speet and Ernest Sims, two homeless Grand Rapids residents and the plaintiffs involved in the aforementioned ruling. The Plaintiffs sued Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette and the City of Grand Rapids for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the anti-panhandling statute violated their First Amendment right to free speech.
The Sixth Circuit held for the plaintiffs, determining that the First Amendment protects charitable solicitations for funds. The court could find no legally justifiable distinction between begging/asking for one’s self and solicitation by organized charities.
Attorney General Schuette argued that the statute is justified by Michigan’s substantial interest in preventing fraud (Schuette argues that many homeless individuals lie as to the cause or extent of their circumstances) and that the great majority of panhandlers use the money for alcohol and drugs. The court absolutely recognized Michigan’s substantial interest in limiting fraud, but determined that this statute was not sufficiently tailored to reach this end. The court stated that the interest “can be better served by a statute that, instead of directly prohibiting begging, is more narrowly tailored to the specific conduct,” the conduct being fraud. Such a narrowly tailored statute would have serious feasibility concerns as to how to determine a homeless man’s veracity as to the cause of his panhandling. Regardless, an enaction of such a statute raises serious moral and social questions that may be best left to the day-to-day decisions of every man.
This article was authored by Law Clerk Roger Leshinsky. Please contact Demorest Law Firm if you have questions.
