7th Cir. Upholds Springfield's Panhandling Ordinance, Using a Historic Twist

29 September 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

It can’t have happened often (if at all) that a retired Justice would decide a new case based on his reading of an opinion in which he dissented.

Yet that is precisely what happened in Thayer v. Worcester, 755 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2014) (Souter, J.), a First Circuit decision from earlier this year in which the now retired Justice Souter, writing for that court, upheld Worcester’s panhandling law using Justice Kennedy’s analysis from International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992)Lee was the latest decision (in a series of three) from the Supreme Court dealing with anti-panhandling laws and one in which Justice Souter had dissented.

The Seventh Circuit highlighted this historic twist recently in Norton v. Springfield, No. 13-3581 (7th Cir. Sept. 25, 2014), where that court considered whether the City of Springfield’s panhandling ordinance, which prohibited panhandling in the city’s “downstown historic district” and defined “panhandling” as an “oral request for an immediate donation of money,” violated the First Amendment. The plaintiffs’ argument was that the ordinance amounted to a content-based restriction on their free speech because the ordinance outlawed only immediate oral requests for money, not other requests that evidently seemed less threatening to Springfield’s lawmakers—e.g., signs or requests to send money in the future.

The Seventh Circuit’s majority opinion, written by Judge Easterbrook (and joined by Judge Sykes), noted that the courts of appeals are split on this issue and appeared to use the fact that Justice Souter, who dissented in Lee, recently voted in Thayer to uphold an ordinance from Worcester because he thought that was how Justice Kennedy would have come down on the issue. Justice Kennedy was the necessary fifth vote in United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990), Lee‘s anti-panhandling predecessor at the Court, and, based on Justice Kennedy’s separate writings in both Kokinda and Lee, Justice Souter concluded that Justice Kennedy’s view is still, as the Seventh Circuit put it, “likely to carry the day.”

The result here, as in Thayer, was that the anti-panhandling ordinance was not an invalid content-based restriction on free speech. Justice Kennedy thought that “an airport [at issue in Lee] should be treated the same as a city street [at issue here] and that restricting panhandling is permissible in both settings” because the law in Lee had been narrowly tailored to prohibit only potentially threatening confrontations. Slip Op. 5. “In other words,” Judge Easterbrook wrote, “what saved the regulation in Justice Kennedy’s eyes is exactly what condemns it in plaintiffs’: the limit to solicitation for immediate receipt, which Justice Kennedy saw as the soul of reasonabless and plaintiffs as pernicious content discrimination.” Id. at 6.

Judge Manion disagreed in an 11-page dissent.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services