Michigan First Amendment: Begging Law Struck Down

In 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a significant First Amendment ruling striking down Michigan’s anti-begging statute as an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech. The case, Speet v. Schuette, 726 F.3d 867 (6th Cir. 2013), examined whether Michigan could criminalize the simple act of asking a stranger for money and concluded that it could not. The decision is a landmark in First Amendment law within the Sixth Circuit, with implications for how Michigan communities can regulate solicitation on public streets and sidewalks.

The Michigan Anti-Begging Statute

Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.167(1)(h) defined a “disorderly person” to include anyone who “begs in a public place.” Under the statute, a person found to be a disorderly person was subject to criminal penalties. The law was facially neutral — it did not distinguish between types of begging or the purpose behind it — but its practical effect was to criminalize any oral or written request for immediate charitable donation made in a public space.

The plaintiffs in Speet v. Schuette were individuals who had been cited under the statute for asking pedestrians for money. Represented by the ACLU, they challenged the statute on First Amendment grounds, arguing that charitable solicitation — including solicitation by individuals for their own immediate needs — is protected speech that the government cannot criminalize simply because some people find it unwelcome.

The First Amendment Framework

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, this protection applies to Michigan’s statutes and local ordinances as well. The degree of First Amendment protection a given type of speech receives depends on how courts classify it.

In Charitable Solicitations, Inc. v. Conley and a long line of Supreme Court cases, the Court established that charitable solicitation — asking people for money for charitable purposes — is a form of protected speech. The Supreme Court reached this conclusion in Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620 (1980), explaining that charitable appeals involve the communication of information, the dissemination and propagation of views, and the advocacy of causes. But did this protection extend to personal begging — an individual asking for money for themselves, not for an organization?

The Sixth Circuit’s Analysis in Speet v. Schuette

The Sixth Circuit held that peaceful begging — simply asking a stranger for spare change — is protected speech under the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the act of begging communicates a message: the beggar’s need and the hope that the listener will respond with generosity. This is expressive conduct that falls within the First Amendment’s protection.

The court applied intermediate scrutiny because the anti-begging statute operated as a content-based regulation of speech in a traditional public forum — a public sidewalk or street. Under United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), a restriction on speech in a public forum must be justified by a significant governmental interest, must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and must leave open ample alternative channels of communication. The Michigan statute failed these requirements. Criminalizing all begging, regardless of whether it was aggressive, threatening, or obstructive, was far broader than necessary to address whatever governmental interest motivated the law.

The court specifically distinguished peaceful begging from conduct that could constitutionally be regulated — such as threatening, harassing, or physically obstructive solicitation. The problem with Michigan’s law was that it swept in protected peaceful conduct along with whatever unprotected conduct the legislature may have been concerned about.

Implications for Michigan Cities and Municipalities

The Speet decision did not give panhandlers the right to engage in threatening, harassing, or aggressive solicitation. Michigan cities and municipalities retain the ability to regulate the manner in which solicitation occurs in public spaces, as long as those regulations are content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Regulations targeting aggressive panhandling — defined by conduct rather than the mere asking for money — have generally survived First Amendment challenge. Similarly, time, place, and manner restrictions on solicitation near ATMs, transit stops, or outdoor dining areas may be constitutionally permissible if properly drafted.

What municipalities cannot do is simply ban all begging, as Michigan attempted to do. Courts following Speet and parallel decisions from other circuits — including the Second, Fourth, and Ninth — have consistently struck down blanket anti-begging ordinances as First Amendment violations. The trend in First Amendment law continues to disfavor broad content-based restrictions on speech in public forums, and the post-Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), framework has made courts even more skeptical of laws that regulate speech based on its content, subject matter, or communicative impact.

First Amendment Rights in the Digital Age

First Amendment protections extend beyond physical public spaces. The internet and social media platforms have become the modern public square, and courts have increasingly applied First Amendment principles to government regulation of online speech. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), affirmed that social media platforms are important venues for protected speech that the government cannot categorically exclude citizens from using. For individuals and businesses facing government restrictions on speech — online or offline — understanding the contours of First Amendment protection is essential.

Revision Legal and First Amendment Law

Revision Legal’s attorneys follow developments in First Amendment law as it intersects with internet regulation, commercial speech, and the rights of individuals and businesses to communicate freely. If you are facing a legal challenge that involves government restriction on speech — whether in a physical public forum or online — our team can evaluate your options. Contact us today to discuss your situation.