Champion v. Commonwealth
2017 Ky. LEXIS 283
Ky.2017Background
- Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government enacted Ordinance 14‑5 (2007), criminalizing all "begging and solicitation" on public streets and at intersections.
- Dennis Champion stood at a prominent intersection holding a handmade sign seeking money, was cited under Ordinance 14‑5, and later entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge.
- Champion appealed; the circuit court affirmed his conviction, and Champion obtained discretionary review by the state supreme court.
- Champion argued the ordinance exceeded local authority and violated the First Amendment; the court disposed of the authority question because it found the ordinance unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
- The court analyzed the ordinance under public‑forum doctrine and Reed v. Town of Gilbert, concluding the ordinance is a facially content‑based restriction on speech and therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
- The court held Lexington failed to show a compelling interest narrowly advanced by the ordinance (public safety/traffic flow evidence lacking; ordinance both under‑ and overinclusive) and reversed, directing dismissal of the charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ordinance 14‑5 is content‑based regulation of speech | Champion: ordinance targets begging/solicitation based on message and is therefore content‑based | Lexington: previously argued content‑neutral, but conceded post‑Reed that it distinguishes based on message | Court: ordinance is facially content‑based because it singles out solicitation/begging for criminal liability in a traditional public forum |
| If content‑based, whether the ordinance survives strict scrutiny | Champion: Lexington cannot show a compelling interest narrowly tailored to ban only begging | Lexington: asserts compelling interests in public safety and free flow of traffic | Court: Lexington failed to show evidence its ban furthers those interests and ordinance is under‑ and overinclusive; strict scrutiny not satisfied — ordinance unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620 (solicitation can constitute protected speech)
- Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (government may not selectively restrict speech based on content)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (content‑neutral time, place, manner framework based on government purpose)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (facial content‑based speech regulations trigger strict scrutiny)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (First Amendment protects expressive conduct)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (recognition that public safety and traffic flow can be legitimate interests but laws must be narrowly tailored)