Planet Aid v. City of St. Johns, MI
782 F.3d 318
6th Cir.2015Background
- Planet Aid, a nonprofit, operated unattended outdoor clothing donation bins on private property in St. Johns, Michigan with landowner consent and weekly collections.
- City officials removed Planet Aid’s bins in January 2013 and later adopted Ordinance #618 (Article 5.518), which bans outdoor, unattended donation boxes while grandfathering existing ones.
- Ordinance’s stated purposes: prevent blight, preserve aesthetics and property values, avoid nuisances, and protect safety.
- Planet Aid sued, alleging the ordinance violated its First Amendment right to engage in charitable solicitation/giving; sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding donation bins are protected speech and the ordinance is content-based, triggering strict scrutiny.
- The City appealed, arguing the ordinance is a content-neutral time/place/manner regulation (analogous to sign/billboard rules) and therefore subject only to intermediate scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether donation bins are protected First Amendment speech | Planet Aid: bins are "silent solicitors" that communicate charity identity and solicit donations, thus protected | City: bins are mere receptacles analogous to nonexpressive outdoor structures (e.g., dumpsters, signs) | Court: bins convey information/advocate for charities and are protected speech |
| Whether Ordinance #618 is content-based or content-neutral | Planet Aid: ordinance targets receptacles because of expressive content (charitable solicitation) and is therefore content-based | City: ordinance is viewpoint-neutral and addresses non-speech harms (aesthetics, blight), so content-neutral TPM | Court: ordinance is facially content-based (applies only to receptacles "intended to accept donated goods") |
| Level of scrutiny applicable | Planet Aid: content-based regulation requires strict scrutiny per Schaumburg and progeny | City: urges intermediate/less-than-strict scrutiny, distinguishing bins from active solicitation | Court: applies strict scrutiny to content-based restriction and follows Schaumburg, Munson, Riley, Abbott |
| Whether the ban is narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests | Planet Aid: total ban is prophylactic and not narrowly tailored; less restrictive content-neutral alternatives exist (maintenance, pickup requirements) | City: interests in aesthetics/blight are compelling; ordinance targets outdoor unattended receptacles and is justified | Court: even assuming compelling interests, the ordinance is not narrowly tailored and likely fails strict scrutiny; preliminary injunction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620 (1980) (charitable solicitation is protected speech and content-based limits are subject to strict scrutiny)
- Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of N.C., 487 U.S. 781 (1988) (speech intertwined with charitable solicitation merits strong First Amendment protection)
- Secretary of State of Md. v. Munson, 467 U.S. 947 (1984) (reaffirming scrutiny for regulations affecting charitable solicitation)
- Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of Tex., Inc. v. Abbott, 647 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 2011) (donation receptacles are "silent solicitors" and subject to First Amendment protection)
- United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) (content-based speech restrictions must satisfy strict scrutiny)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time, place, manner analysis and content-neutrality framework)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 530 (1980) (regulation that suppresses discussion of an entire topic is content-based)