Federal appeals court upholds ruling against Alabama panhandling laws
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court ruling that found two Alabama laws criminalizing panhandling unconstitutional.
Citing existing legal precedents, U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth L. Branch wrote in the unanimous opinion that First Amendment protections of speech apply to the act of begging.
'Thus, the begging statute's applications, which are solely to begging, are impermissible, and the pedestrian solicitation statute's applications, which are to begging and other constitutionally protected speech, are impermissible,' Branch stated in her opinion.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Messages were sent to Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, the defendant in the lawsuit. Messages were also left with the Alabama Attorney General's Office, which represented the state, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represented plaintiff Jonathan Singleton, and others in the suit.
The initial lawsuit challenged two statutes. The first prohibits a person from standing on the highway and asking those in a vehicle for money, a job or other 'business.' Violating that statute is punishable by up to 10 days in jail and a $100 fine. The second prevents people from loitering in public spaces 'for the purpose of begging,' which carries a penalty of up to 30 days in jail and a $200 fine.
Singleton was cited six times for allegedly violating the laws in Montgomery.
A lower court ruled in Singleton's favor in March 2023 and issued a permanent injunction against ALEA's enforcement of the law. The agency appealed the lower court decision to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Attorneys from the Southern Poverty Law Center, who represented Singleton and the individuals affected, and the Alabama Attorney General's Office argued the case before a panel of three judges with the 11th Circuit in December.
Alabama Deputy Solicitor General Robert Overing argued in court that begging specifically is not protected speech based on the First Amendment and that the state could regulate the activity and impose penalties on those who violate rules set by the government.
He cited a law passed in the state of New York in 1788 and an action by former President James Madison in 1812 to penalize those who loitered in public spaces.
The Southern Poverty Law Center cited Smith v. Fort Lauderdale, a 1999 decision by the 11th Circuit that upheld a local law banning panhandling on part of a sidewalk, but said that panhandling laws must be narrowly tailored to avoid infringing on the First Amendment. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals then applied that same standard to other cases involving panhandling.
The Alabama Legislature revised the statute concerning begging in public places during the 2023 session by approving HB 24, sponsored by Rep. Reed Ingram, R-Matthews, that makes the first arrest for loitering a violation and subsequent infractions a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fine.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
a day ago
- Epoch Times
Beijing Pays Influencers in Africa to Spread Anti-US Messaging
By | Updated: JOHANNESBURG—Chinese and Russian agents are paying social media influencers in Africa to spread anti-U.S. messages worldwide, with the Trump administration being a top target, media experts say. Their research reveals that many influencers who use the TikTok platform are earning hundreds to thousands of dollars per month by disseminating misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda that benefits Beijing and Moscow. AD
Business Insider
2 days ago
- Business Insider
Nigerian Immigration issues advisory to citizens travelling to the US
The Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) has issued a formal advisory urging citizens to strictly follow the conditions of their U.S. visas, following concerns by the U.S. government over widespread misuse. The Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) advised citizens to adhere to U.S. visa conditions to avoid penalties Students studying in the U.S. must maintain full-time academic status to prevent visa cancellation. This advisory aligns Nigeria alongside other African nations in promoting global mobility compliance standards. In a statement, NIS spokesperson ACI Akinlabi said, 'The NIS wishes to inform the general public about the concerns raised by the US government over the misuse of visas by Nigerians.' He warned that violations—such as overstaying or unauthorized activities —could lead to visa revocation, deportation, or permanent travel bans. 'Breach of visa conditions, including overstaying, may attract severe penalties, including removal from the U.S. and permanent ineligibility for future travel,' he said. Akinlabi also advised Nigerian students in the U.S. to maintain full-time academic status: 'Nigerian students in the U.S. must remain in active study. Withdrawal, absenteeism, or change of academic program without notification may lead to visa cancellation and loss of future eligibility.' He further noted that consular officers can deny tourist visas if they suspect the applicant intends to give birth in the U.S.: 'The NIS continues to collaborate with the U.S. Mission in Abuja to ensure Nigeria is not included in any expanded visa restrictions. Compliance with visa regulations is essential to safeguard legitimate travel by Nigerian citizens.' U.S-Nigeria travel advisory As of mid-July 2025, the United States maintains a Level 3 travel advisory for Nigeria, urging citizens to reconsider travel due to persistent threats from crime, terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, armed gangs, and inadequate healthcare services. In addition to security concerns, the U.S. government has also issued fresh visa-related warnings to Nigerian applicants. On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Department of State revised its visa reciprocity policy, reducing the validity of most non-immigrant, non-diplomatic visas for Nigerian citizens to three months, single entry. Previously issued visas remain valid under their original terms. Furthermore, in a July 28, 2025 memo, the U.S. Mission in Nigeria warned that travel primarily for childbirth purposes, commonly referred to as birth tourism, is prohibited. Visa applications suspected of being linked to this practice may be denied, with applicants subject to heightened scrutiny and possible penalties for misrepresentation. Together, these measures reflect a broader tightening of U.S. immigration controls targeting both security and immigration integrity concerns. Nigeria's issuance of this advisory brings it in line with 36 other African countries facing potential travel restrictions. Authorities and U.S. missions in these countries have warned against visa fraud, overstays, and misuse of travel privileges.
USA Today
2 days ago
- USA Today
From marginal religious groups to mainstream Christians: Why some see a shift in Supreme Court cases
The court's first case involving a Rastafarian highlights the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history, even as more cases come from mainstream Christian groups. WASHINGTON – There have been no shortage of religious groups seeking help from the Supreme Court in recent years, including three cases last term that involved the Catholic Church. But the religion at the center of a case set for after the summer is not nearly as well represented in the population - or in the courtroom. In fact, it appears to be the first time the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Rastafarian. Damon Landor said his religious rights were violated when his dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. More: Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights Handcuffed to a chair while his dreadlocks were shaved off Landor had shown prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated. But an intake guard threw the ruling in the trash and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while his knee-length locks were shaved off. The justices will decide whether Landor can sue the guards for compensation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor – whose appeal was backed by more than 30 religious groups and the Justice Department − argues that monetary damages are often the only way to hold prison officials accountable when religious rights are violated. Legal experts on religion cases expect the court will side with the Rastafarian. That would be consistent not just with the high success rate of appeals the court agrees to hear from religious people, but also with the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists Most of the religious cases Richard Garnett teaches in his classes at the University of Notre Dame Law School involve smaller religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists. 'The story of religious freedom in America has developed through cases involving members of minority religions,' Garnett said. Other court watchers, however, say that was more true in the past than it is now. 'That's kind of a legacy view,' said Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law. In fact, a 2022 study found that; since 2005, the winning religion in most Supreme Court religious cases was a mainstream Christian organization. In the past, by contrast, pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations, according to the analysis by Lee Epstein at Washington University in St. Louis and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School. 'The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide modest but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values,' they wrote. Similarly, traditionalist Christians – such as orthodox Catholics and Baptists – had been significantly less successful than other religious groups in getting accommodations from lower federal courts from 1986 to 1995, according to a study by Michael Heise of Cornell Law School and Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. But from 2006 to 2015, their disadvantage 'appeared to fade into statistical insignificance,' they wrote in 2022. The Supreme Court, they said, 'appears to be setting the stage for a more equitable and expansive protection of religious liberty.' Colorado and the gay wedding cake debate Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, agrees that the court has taken an expansive view of religious liberty protections. But he says it hasn't always been equitable. In 2018, the court said Colorado had shown "religious hostility" to a baker who didn't want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. More: How a Supreme Court case about a gay couple's wedding cake got caught up in Israeli judicial reform But that same month, Mach said, the court upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban 'even in the face of Trump's repeated unambiguous statements condemning Islam and Muslims.' More broadly, he said, the court's 'general hostility to the separation of church and state' erodes protections for minority groups promised by the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a specific religion or favoring religion in general. 'Built into that structure is necessarily a protection against the imposition by the majority of its favored religious doctrine,' he said. In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at 'Eradicating anti-Christian Bias' and calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." The administration cited that order when telling federal employees in a July 28 memo they may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates Ruling for Amish built on to benefit other religions In June, the Supreme Court built upon a 1972 ruling for the Amish as it affirmed the religious rights of parents to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. When deciding more than 50 years ago that Amish parents did not have to keep their children in school until age 16 as Wisconsin required, the court said those parents had an argument 'that probably few other religious groups or sects could make.' But Justice Samuel Alito left no doubt about the broader significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder in the 6-3 opinion he authored in June that sided with parents from a variety of religious backgrounds − including Roman Catholic but also Muslim, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other faiths − who objected to the LGBTQ+ storybooks used in Maryland school district. 'Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority,' Alito wrote. More: Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools In a 2020 speech to the conservative Federalist Society, Alito had warned that 'religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.' He listed examples of cases he'd judged about religious minorities, including the rights of Muslim police officers to have beards, of a Jewish prisoner to organize a Torah study group and whether a Native American could keep a bear for religious services. The baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and Catholic nuns who objected to insurance coverage for contraceptives 'deserve no less protection,' Alito said about more recent cases. More: Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion `Clear pattern of preference for religious groups' Cornell Law School Professor Nelson Tebbe said more of the claims about religious freedom started to come from mainstream majority Christian groups as political polarization increased and as the gay rights movement picked up speed. 'Suddenly, civil libertarian groups who had been on the side of minority religions…started to realize that civil rights laws could be vulnerable to religious attacks by conservative Christians and they started to get worried,' Tebbe said. As the court has shifted its approach, he said, the justices have both granted exemptions from regulations that burden religion as well as said government must treat religious groups no differently than secular organizations when providing public benefits − such as school vouchers. 'While both of those could be seen as understandable on their own terms, when you put them together, there's a clear pattern of preference for religious groups,' he said. 'It's a pretty dramatic moment in constitutional law in this area.' Garnett, the religious freedom expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said the court's decisions are a reflection of the ongoing debate over how much accommodation should be given in a country with diverse religious views. 'So the fact that those cases are coming up isn't because the court sort of shifted to protecting majority groups,' he said. 'It's because events on the ground shifted. And the nature of the controversies that are served up are different.'
