City of Lakewood v. Willis
186 Wash. 2d 210
| Wash. | 2016Background
- Lakewood Municipal Code (LMC) 9A.04.020A criminalizes "begging" (soliciting money/goods as charity) in six defined "restrictive areas," including (1) at on/off ramps to state intersections and (2) at intersections of major arterials; violation is a misdemeanor.
- Robert Willis was cited after soliciting at the northbound I‑5 exit to Gravelly Lake Drive; the complaint cited the ordinance generally but the jury was instructed only on subsections (1) (ramps) and (2) (major intersections).
- Willis was convicted, sentenced, and appealed, raising First Amendment (facial and as‑applied), vagueness, and equal protection claims; lower courts affirmed, reasoning that ramps/nonpublic forums permit reasonable restrictions and noting evidence he entered a traffic lane.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review, held the facial First Amendment challenge could be resolved as a legal question, and rejected the lower courts’ reliance on Willis’s particular conduct (entry into a travel lane) when assessing a facial overbreadth challenge.
- The court concluded subsections (1) and (2) cover many traditional public forums (sidewalks at ramps/intersections) and—relying on Reed v. Town of Gilbert—held the ordinance is content based (it targets solicitation for charitable purposes), so it is subject to strict scrutiny and is facially overbroad; Willis’s conviction was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Willis) | Defendant's Argument (City of Lakewood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Willis may bring a facial First Amendment challenge | Willis argued the ordinance (at least subsecs. (1) and (2)) is facially overbroad because it prohibits protected speech in traditional public forums | City argued review should be limited by the record (Willis raised claims late) and that applicable areas (ramps) are nonpublic forums where restrictions are permissible | Court allowed facial challenge on legal record and proceeded to decide it on two legal questions |
| Whether subsections (1) and (2) cover traditional public forums | Willis: sidewalks exist at many ramps/intersections so the provisions reach public forums | City: freeway‑related locales are nonpublic forums; Willis’s conduct occurred in a nonpublic travel lane | Court held the provisions cover a substantial number of traditional public forums (sidewalks at ramps/intersections) |
| Whether the ordinance is content based or content neutral | Willis: law targets solicitation for charity (money/goods) and is therefore content based | City: argued pre‑Reed precedent treated solicitation rules as content neutral and emphasized safety/regulatory aims | Court held the ordinance is content based under Reed (it regulates speech by subject/purpose) |
| Remedy and effect on conviction | Willis sought reversal of conviction and invalidation of the ordinance provisions at issue | City sought to uphold conviction as properly applied or limit ruling to nonpublic areas | Court reversed Willis’s conviction because the challenged provisions are content based and facially overbroad in many public forums |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620 (1980) (charitable appeals for funds receive First Amendment protection)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) (ordinance is content based if it defines regulated speech by subject or purpose)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (forum analysis: different standards for traditional, designated, and nonpublic forums)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (restrictions in nonpublic forums must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (facial challenges succeed if statute prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech)
- Collier v. City of Tacoma, 121 Wn.2d 737 (1993) (state precedent recognizing streets/sidewalks as traditional public forums and government’s burden to justify restrictions)