Don Norton v. City of Springfield
768 F.3d 713
7th Cir.2014Background
- Springfield ordinances ban panhandling in its downtown historic district, defining panhandling as an in-person request for an immediate donation; signs are allowed and deferred donations are permitted; plaintiffs fear enforcement and seek a preliminary injunction; district court held the law content-neutral on its face; opinions discuss a circuit split on content-based versus content-neutral panhandling regulations and cite Supreme Court and prior circuit decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Springfield ordinance content-neutral or content-based? | Plaints argue content-based targeting of speech favors commercial over charitable speech. | Springfield argues the ordinance is content-neutral, not distinguishing by message. | Content-neutral; ordinance survives as TP&M regulation. |
| Does the ordinance violate First Amendment by proscribing immediate monetary requests? | Prohibition of immediate requests is unconstitutional content discrimination. | Regulation is a permissible time/place/manner restriction. | No First Amendment violation; regulation upheld as content-neutral TP&M. |
| Does exemption for signs render the ordinance content-based? | Exemption for signs shows discriminatory content treatment. | Exemption does not make the rule content-based. | Exemption does not render content-based; rule remains content-neutral. |
| Should the court follow ISKCON/DC Circuit approach versus First/Sixth/Ninth on content-based analysis? | ISKCON-based reasoning misapplied; content-based distinction should govern. | Approaches differ; court should align with Kennedy-in-Lee analysis. | Court adopts First/DC stance that focus is on content-neutral time/place/manner; discusses ISKCON with caution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1992) (airport/terminal solicitation ban upheld as reasonable in a traditional forum context)
- United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (U.S. 1990) (post office sidewalk solicitation upheld under time/place/manner)
- Heffron v. Int’l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1981) (state fair permits restricted fundraising; solicitation regulation justified as TP&M)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (U.S. 2014) (narrowly tailored speech-restricting regulation in public forums; content-neutral analysis nuanced)
- Gresham v. Peterson, 225 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2000) (content-neutral challenge to panhandling-like regulation in Indianapolis)