James Speet v. Bill Schuette, 726 F.3d 867

Background

Michigan criminal statute (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.167(1)(h)) makes "begging in a public place" a disorderly-person misdemeanor (up to 90 days jail or $500 fine); enforcement in Grand Rapids produced hundreds of arrests/citations from 2008–2011.
Plaintiffs James Speet and Ernest Sims (homeless individuals) were charged under the statute for holding signs or verbally requesting money; both pled guilty at times and were fined or jailed.
Plaintiffs sued state and local officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the statute is facially and as-applied unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on the facial First Amendment claim (and related equal protection claim), and the State appealed. The parties agreed there were no material factual disputes on the facial challenge.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo, framed the facial First Amendment challenge as an overbreadth challenge, and examined whether begging (soliciting alms) is protected speech and whether the statute is substantially overbroad.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether begging (soliciting alms) is protected by the First Amendment	Begging is solicitation conveying personal needs and therefore constitutes protected expressive conduct akin to charitable solicitation	Begging is primarily conduct, not speech, and may be regulated to prevent nuisance, fraud, and duress	Begging is a form of solicitation protected by the First Amendment
Whether Michigan's anti-begging statute is facially invalid as substantially overbroad	The statute criminalizes a substantial amount of protected solicitation and will chill speech; hundreds of enforcement incidents demonstrate realistic overbreadth	The statute targets unprotected conduct (begging) and serves substantial interests (fraud prevention, public order); it can be applied constitutionally	The statute is substantially overbroad and facially invalid under the First Amendment
Whether a limiting construction can save the statute	No limiting construction was offered that would preserve constitutionality while leaving the statute intact	The State argued its interests (fraud, duress) justify application and narrower enforcement could be possible	Court found the statutory text cannot be fairly read to limit its reach and thus cannot be saved by construction
Whether the court must decide Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) claim	Plaintiffs included facial equal protection challenge	State defended on merits and relied on enforcement interests	Court affirmed on First Amendment overbreadth and expressly declined to resolve the Fourteenth Amendment question

Key Cases Cited

Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 444 U.S. 620 (1980) (charitable solicitation is intertwined with protected speech and entitled to First Amendment protection)
Joseph H. Munson Co. v. Secretary of State of Maryland, 467 U.S. 947 (1984) (overbreadth analysis and protection for solicitation-related expression)
Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781 (1988) (recognizing solicitation of charitable contributions as protected speech)
United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) (solicitation recognized as protected speech though regulation of time/place may be permissible)
Loper v. New York City Police Dep't, 999 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1993) (begging/panhandling treated as protected solicitation)
Gresham v. Peterson, 225 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2000) (analogizing individual panhandlers to charities; holding solicitation protected)
Smith v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 177 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 1999) (begging is speech entitled to First Amendment protection)
Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville, 708 F.3d 549 (4th Cir. 2013) (begging constitutes communicative activity within First Amendment protection)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (standards for facial overbreadth review)