Glendale panhandling law faces free speech legal challenge | Arizona Capitol Times

Key Points:

• Glendale hit with federal lawsuit over panhandling, traffic ordinance

• Civil rights and First Amendment groups allege free speech violations 

• Plaintiffs claim enforcement, language of the law to be unconstitutional

Glendale’s panhandling ordinance, adopted ahead of the 2023 Super Bowl despite warnings of First Amendment falter, is finally facing legal challenge in federal court. 

A lawsuit filed by the First Amendment Clinic at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Public Justice and the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Arizona seeks to strike down two city ordinances for alleged free speech violations.

“In Glendale, it is legal to carry a sign that says Jesus loves me, for example, but it is not legal to carry a sign that says Jesus wants you to give me a dollar,” Lauren Beall, attorney for the ACLU said. “If you have to look at what’s written on a sign to tell if it’s legal or not, that is the government violating your First Amendment right.” 

In late 2022, in anticipation of Super Bowl LVII in Glendale, the city council adopted two ordinances to curb panhandling. 

The first prohibited solicitation of money or any items of value on public transit, at public transit stations, within 50 feet of a bank, ATM, or check-cashing business, within 25 feet of any private property, and from drivers. It also prohibited “aggressive” panhandling on any public property. 

The second ordinance prohibited pedestrians from standing near roads, or on medians and traffic islands, except to wait to cross the street. 

Violating the pan-handling ordinance carries a civil violation. But a second offense within the following year of the first offense would be a misdemeanor, with a maximum fine of $2,500 and up to six months in jail. 

As for the street and median ordinance, the first offense starts with a warning, then a civil violation, and a second offense would again mean a misdemeanor. 

The American Civil Liberties Union and Public Justices wrote to the city two weeks ahead of the Super Bowl in 2023 to try to warn the city of the potential constitutional failings, warning similar ordinances have been struck down by courts in the past. 

The city did not respond but added additional definitions on “aggressive” and “solicit.” The ordinances have since remained in place. 

On July 30, the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, Public Justice and ASU’s First Amendment Clinic filed a lawsuit, representing three plaintiffs who have previously solicited or currently solicit. 

Two of the plaintiffs, Amy Hughes and Denise Carr, have been threatened with arrest for asking for donations. 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue the panhandling ordinance constitutes a content-based restriction, given that it singles out solicitation, and the median and street ordinance improperly imposes a burden on public forums. 

The complaint starts by listing past cases in which similar ordinances have been challenged in federal court and have either been struck down as unlawful or challenged on First Amendment grounds. 

Gregg Leslie, director of the ASU First Amendment Clinic, said the issue was a “fundamental restriction on speech.” 

Aaron Baumann, an attorney with ASU’s First Amendment clinic, argued in the complaint that even though ordinances technically apply to any person seeking charitable donations — from panhandlers, high school sports teams, Girl Scouts and the city’s fire department — the City Council kept panhandlers at the front of mind and Glendale Police Department has enforced the law with the same aim. 

“A firefighter in Glendale can sit outside of a business, a grocery store and ask for charitable donations for the fire department, which is solicitation, and in the ordinance, it’s specifically not allowed for you to do so in front of a business, and they’re not going to be cited or hassled or warned by the police,” Beall said. “But if a poor person stands on the street corner or in front of a grocery store asking for charitable donations, then they are going to be.” 

Beall said the legal team had gathered enforcement records from the city revealing such a pattern. 

As for the traffic median, attorneys argue there is no legitimate public reason to justify banning expressive pedestrian presence from traditional public forums. 

And, overall, they claim both ordinances reach too far.

“By regulating the solicitation of ‘items of value’ in various public places, prohibits such benign conduct as asking a friend for a cigarette outside a bar, asking a parent for bus fare at a bus stop, or collecting donations of food, money, or children’s toys for charity outside a grocery store,” Baumann wrote. 

He continued, “even on traffic islands where pedestrian presence could have no effect on traffic safety, members of the public cannot engage in core First Amendment activity like holding signs in protest or political advocacy. Pedestrians may not even stop on a median to have an extended conversation or debate political issues.”

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the two ordinances unconstitutional and enjoin enforcement. 

The city of Glendale did not immediately respond to a request for comment.