top of page

These cases demonstrate a clear trend in federal courts towards protecting panhandling as a form of free speech, particularly when ordinances are content-based or not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. Courts have consistently ruled that while governments may have legitimate interests in regulating panhandling to ensure public safety and order, such regulations must be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on First Amendment rights.



Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015): Although not directly about panhandling, this case is significant for its broad implications on how courts evaluate restrictions on speech. The Supreme Court held that content-based regulations of speech are subject to strict scrutiny. This ruling has been applied in subsequent panhandling cases, as many panhandling ordinances are considered content-based.


Thayer v. City of Worcester (2015): The First Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Worcester, Massachusetts ordinance that restricted panhandling, finding it violated the First Amendment. The court applied the principles from Reed v. Town of Gilbert, determining that the ordinance was a content-based restriction on speech.


Norton v. City of Springfield (2015): The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a Springfield, Illinois ordinance banning panhandling in the downtown area. The court found that the ordinance was a content-based restriction on speech and thus subject to strict scrutiny, which it did not pass.


Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015): The Supreme Court ruled that the town of Gilbert, Arizona's sign code, which imposed more stringent restrictions on signs directing people to religious services than on signs for political, ideological, and other types of messages, violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. The Court found the regulations to be content-based and therefore subject to strict scrutiny, which they failed to pass.

Speet v. Schuette (2013): The Sixth Circuit struck down a Michigan state law that criminalized begging in public places, ruling that peaceful panhandling is protected speech under the First Amendment.


Cutting v. City of Portland (2013): The First Circuit invalidated a Portland, Maine ordinance that prohibited standing on medians, which was commonly used to target panhandlers. The court found that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to serve the city's interest in public safety.


Loper v. New York City Police Department (1993): The Second Circuit held that a New York state law banning begging in public places was unconstitutional. The court found that peaceful begging is a form of expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.


Q: Is panhandling protected under the First Amendment?

A: Yes, panhandling is generally considered a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment.


Q: Can municipalities completely ban panhandling?

A: Complete bans on panhandling are often found unconstitutional, but cities may impose certain time, place, and manner restrictions.


Q: What constitutes "aggressive" panhandling?

A: Aggressive panhandling typically includes behaviors like touching, following, using abusive language, or panhandling in a way that impedes pedestrian or traffic flow.


Q: Are aggressive panhandling laws constitutional?

A: Many cities have laws against aggressive panhandling, and courts often uphold these as long as they are specifically defined and address behavior, not the act of panhandling itself.


Q: How do panhandling laws affect First Amendment auditors?

A: First Amendment auditors should be aware of local panhandling laws, as they can intersect with rights to free speech in public spaces.


Q: Can panhandling be prohibited in specific areas?

A: Yes, cities may restrict panhandling in certain areas, like near ATMs or schools, where individuals may feel more vulnerable.


Q: Are there any federal laws regulating panhandling?

A: No federal laws specifically regulate panhandling; it's generally governed by local ordinances.


Q: Is panhandling allowed on private property?

A: Property owners can prohibit panhandling on private property, and individuals panhandling in these areas can be asked to leave.


Q: What are the typical penalties for violating panhandling laws?

A: Penalties vary but can include fines or, in some cases, arrest for misdemeanors.


Q: How can First Amendment auditors legally document or engage in panhandling?

A: Auditors can document or engage in panhandling as long as they adhere to local laws and do not engage in aggressive or obstructive behaviors.


Q: Do panhandling laws differ from city to city?

A: Yes, panhandling laws can vary greatly between different cities and municipalities.


Q: Can panhandling laws be challenged on First Amendment grounds?

A: Yes, panhandling laws are often challenged as violations of free speech, and courts have struck down many such laws.


Q: Are silent or passive forms of panhandling also protected?

A: Yes, silent or passive panhandling, like holding a sign, is generally protected under the First Amendment.


Q: Is panhandling protected in public forums like parks and sidewalks?

A: Generally, yes, but it can be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.


Q: How do "no solicitation" laws affect panhandling?

A: "No solicitation" laws can sometimes be applied to panhandling, but they must be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on First Amendment rights.


Disclaimer: The information provided in these FAQs is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult a licensed attorney.

bottom of page