Are Panhandling and Solicitation Protected Free Speech?

Sights and sounds of many downtown areas include people stopping to chat, street performers, seasonal bell ringers with donation kettles, and people in need asking passersby for food or money — also known as panhandling.

In many cities and towns, some of these activities are a subject of debate: Do they make a downtown area more vibrant or more dangerous? Views often differ among people in need, community members and government officials when it comes to panhandling.

Is panhandling protected as free speech under the First Amendment? Can it be banned or regulated?

Is panhandling protected by the First Amendment?

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that soliciting contributions to a charity is protected under the First Amendment as free speech but has never specifically said that the act of soliciting for oneself through panhandling is free speech. It simply hasn’t had that case.

But lower courts around the country — including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 6th and 11th circuits — have extended the Supreme Court decision protecting solicitations for charity to solicitations for oneself.

This includes panhandling by asking verbally for money, food or other help; holding up a sign to that effect; or silently holding out a hand in a gesture symbolizing need.

For example, in April 2025, the 11th Circuit ruled that two Alabama laws that make begging illegal are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court said that begging, which it noted is interchangeable with panhandling and soliciting, is protected free speech and cannot be outlawed altogether.

What about:

• Passing out leaflets.
• Soliciting donations to a charity or nonprofit organization.
• Asking for signatures on a petition.
• Busking, or performing, such as playing an instrument, often for tips.
• Speaking to passersby, such as preaching about religious beliefs or criticizing a government policy.

These actions have similar protections and limitations as panhandling because, in general, the government may not treat people differently depending on what they are speaking about.

Can panhandling be limited by government regulation?

Yes, panhandling is free speech, but this right is not unlimited, and panhandling can be regulated in some cases, although regulations must align with the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

The First Amendment applies to restrictions imposed by the government. Private businesses that are accessible to members of the public, such as stores or restaurants, can prohibit soliciting or panhandling on their premises unless the right to engage in those acts is protected in a different way, such as by a state constitution that guarantees the right to free speech in private businesses.

When looking at public spaces, some of the considerations that courts weigh when determining if limits on free speech violate the First Amendment are the history, design and traditional use of the space where panhandling occurs.

Public places where free speech activities traditionally occur are called public forums and are most open to speech like panhandling. Public parks, sidewalks, medians and streets are typically considered by courts to be public forums.

Laws restricting panhandling have been considered by most courts to be “content based” because they apply based on what the speaker is trying to say. Content-based restrictions on speech in a public forum violate the First Amendment unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify panhandling regulations, and those laws must be drafted narrowly to achieve that goal.

Not all public places are public forums, though. Depending on the specific characteristics of the space in question, courts have sometimes ruled that airport terminals (such as in New York and New Jersey) and subway stations (such as in New York) are nonpublic forums and have allowed bans on solicitation in these spaces because speech can be regulated in nonpublic forums as long as the restriction is reasonable and applied to all speakers equally, regardless of their viewpoint.

Laws that specifically regulate panhandling

Regulations based on the content of speech, such as panhandling, are the most difficult kind of speech regulation for the government to justify as constitutional.

In 2015, the Supreme Court clarified how courts should determine if a law is regulating speech based on its content and thus should be subject to the highest standard of review. It said in Reed v. Town of Gilbert that “a speech regulation is content based if the law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.”

The ruling means that going forward, the high standards for judging laws that regulate speech based on its topic apply to more laws than courts had previously applied that standard to before the ruling.

The ruling left governments less able to regulate speech based on its content, such as speech that is panhandling or solicitation.

RELATED: Why the government usually can't limit the content of your speech

According to the National Homelessness Law Center, “Every panhandling ordinance challenged in court since 2015 has been struck down or repealed.”

However, many unchallenged laws remain on the books. A 2016 survey by the NHLC of nearly 200 cities showed that 61% banned panhandling in certain public places. As of December 2021, six states banned panhandling statewide, while about half of states had laws that restrict panhandling in certain public places such as on highways or in airport terminals.

Seven states banned “aggressive” panhandling, but most states restrict aggressive behaviors, such as touching someone without consent, under other laws against assault and harassment instead. These laws do not violate the First Amendment because they punish physical contact, not speech or expression.

Several states have proposed or (in the case of Louisiana and Arizona) enacted new or revised laws limiting panhandling since 2021.

Someone affected by laws to specifically limit panhandling could ask the courts to decide if the law as a whole or as enforced against them violates the high standard for protecting panhandling as free speech.

Laws that affect panhandling, even if they do not specifically address it

Many places have laws against loitering, or hanging about aimlessly, and against sleeping or camping in public. These laws tend to regulate behaviors rather than speech, and courts typically evaluate them under other legal principles, not the First Amendment.

Many places also have laws limiting people from being on medians in the road. These laws might never use the word “panhandling.” They apply to anyone, sometimes with exceptions for city workers or in case of emergency. But they can affect people who would otherwise be on a median to exercise free speech, including panhandling. And they can be challenged on free speech grounds if they do not meet the “intermediate scrutiny” test in which the government must demonstrate three things: an important or substantial interest they are trying to achieve by the limit; that this interest is unrelated to the content of the speech; and that the restriction limits no more speech than necessary and allows other avenues for the speech to occur.

What are some examples of cases around panhandling, solicitation and the First Amendment?

Panhandling law upheld: Airports managed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (1992)

New York City-area airport terminals managed by the government ban repetitive solicitation, a ban that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in International Society for Krishna Consciousness Inc. v. Lee. The Hare Krishna, a Hindu movement whose religious practice includes sharing religious literature and soliciting funds in public, challenged the ban on First Amendment grounds.

The Supreme Court said that the airport terminals are not a public forum designed or traditionally used for speech, noting that the purpose of an airport is to help people efficiently get to where they need to be. Because they are nonpublic forums, the restriction only needs to be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Ensuring that solicitors do not block walkways and cause costly delays for travelers meets that standard when applied to all solicitors equally.

Solicitation was allowed outside the building on public sidewalks and in a designated airport area near the chapel, allowing the religious solicitors to reach travelers with their speech even if they could not do so in some otherwise public areas of the airport.

The court ruled that they could hand out religious leaflets in the airport but not solicit funds.

Panhandling law overturned: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (2020)

After several revisions and a lawsuit, Oklahoma City in 2017 updated its laws to ban sitting, standing or staying on certain medians depending on the size of the median, speed of traffic and distance from intersections, except for authorized workers and in case of emergencies.

The law, which the city said was to ensure traffic safety, did not specifically restrict panhandling or other speech, but it did affect people trying to exercise free speech. A group of people sued, including people campaigning for office, gathering petition signatures, distributing newspapers, news reporting and panhandling.

A court first ruled that the law was a valid, content-neutral restriction on the time, place and manner of speech. However, an appeals court then said in 2020 that the law had the effect of shutting down all speech — a content-based restriction of speech — and overturned it. The appeals court said:

• The city did not show evidence for a direct connection between real traffic dangers and the restrictions in the law.
• The city made an exception for beautification volunteers to be in medians despite the city’s stated concerns about safety, showing that the city was really concerned about stopping panhandling.
• Public officials’ comments during the writing of the law calling it a “panhandling law” suggest the motive was to limit panhandling rather than to ensure safety.
• People trying to exercise free speech did not have a good alternative because of how restrictive the law was, and the city had not adequately considered other ways to ensure safety.

The Supreme Court declined to take up the case, leaving the law overturned.

Panhandling law upheld: Sandy City, Oklahoma (2020)

A Sandy City, Oklahoma, ordinance made it illegal “to sit or stand, in or on any unpaved median, or any median of less than 36 inches for any period of time.” A man who was cited four times for violating the law while panhandling sued and said the law violated his free speech rights.

A court ruled that the law was a valid restriction on the time, place and manner of speech, and an appeals court agreed, upholding the law.

The appeals court said that the city proved that the law was created in response to demonstrated safety issues and was not aimed at limiting speech. The court also pointed out that there were many other medians where the law did not apply, and the man suing could have moved down approximately 10 feet and panhandled without violating the law. So, the court said, though speech was affected, the law was tailored to achieve the safety goals and still allow avenues for speech, including panhandling.

The Supreme Court declined to take up the case, leaving the law in place.  Similar laws, sometimes known as “sit/lie” laws, exist around the country.

Panhandling law repealed: Alexandria, Virginia (2023)

In October 2023, the Alexandria, Virginia, city council repealed a 1994 ordinance banning panhandling within 15 feet of ATMs. The city council noted that a similar law in Charlottesville, Virginia, was overturned on free speech grounds and that many jurisdictions had overturned or modified their ordinances about panhandling since the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that raised the bar for upholding laws that target the specific content of speech.

Panhandling law in court: Jacksonville, Florida (2024)

In 2024, the nonprofit publisher of The Homeless Voice newspaper sued the city of Jacksonville, Florida, over a traffic code that the homelessness support and advocacy nonprofit said prevented its 10 newspaper vendors from working.

The February 2023 city code banned “any physical interaction between a pedestrian and an occupant of a motor vehicle” and “soliciting in the right-of-way” as well as stopping, standing or remaining in a median.

The law allows people to apply for a permit for a 72-hour exemption up to twice a year, with proof of liability insurance and a detailed safety plan.

Penalties for violating the law include fines and jail.

The lawsuit in progress claims that the law specifically targets speech based on its content in violation of the First Amendment, and that the law restricts too much speech through its limits and permit requirements.

In the meantime, Jacksonville police have said that they will not enforce the law against people on sidewalks (which the wording of the law suggested would also be restricted).

What’s the bottom line on panhandling and the First Amendment?

The government must justify any regulations on panhandling. It is very hard for the government to justify a complete ban on panhandling, particularly in public places traditionally open for speech like busking and begging. There is also a very high bar to specifically regulate panhandling, or other types of speech, because the First Amendment protects speech regardless of the topic.

The government can most commonly justify regulations that limit panhandling when the laws are aimed at another government goal, like keeping pedestrians safe from vehicle traffic, and when the laws do so in a way that does not affect speech more than needed to accomplish the goal.

The courts weigh First Amendment free speech principles with the interests of cities and states seeking to regulate panhandling, which remains a subject of debate and concern.

Karen Hansen is a content writer at Freedom Forum. She can be reached at [email protected].