A homeless resident and a veteran with disabilities, who had both been arrested and prosecuted under a Michigan anti-begging statute, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, against the City of Grand Rapids and its police department on Sept. 13, 2011. The law that the plaintiffs were arrested under criminalized all begging in public places. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, challenged the constitutionality of the statute, both on its face and as applied, and sought declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. The plaintiffs alleged that the enforcement of the statute violated their rights under the First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and Due Process Clause. They further alleged that the defendants failed to train, supervise, and discipline their personnel and officers to act in accordance with the Constitution.

On Aug. 24, 2012, District Judge Robert J. Jonker granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Speet v. Schuette, 889 F. Supp. 2d 969 (W.D. Mich. 2012). The court found that the statute, on its face, violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that the statute was a content-based restriction on protected speech in a public forum, and that it caused disparate treatment. The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the statute was narrowly tailored to its purported purpose of preventing fraudulent or dishonest panhandling. The statute was therefore held unconstitutional.

The defendants appealed the decision, and on Aug. 14, 2013, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court (726 F.3d 867), holding that soliciting alms was protected under the First Amendment and that the Michigan statute was unconstitutional.

In 2013, following the appeal, the ACLU reached settlement agreements with the State of Michigan and the City of Grand Rapids regarding damages and attorney's fees. The City of Grand Rapids approved a $48,000 settlement on October 8, 2013. The terms of the settlement agreements were not otherwise made public and the case closed shortly after.

The ACLU subsequently identified approximately 80 local ordinances in Michigan similar to the state law held unconstitutional by the Sixth Circuit, and sent letters to the municipalities requesting changes to the ordinances. This effort led to an additional suit, Cuthrell v. Charter Township of Waterford, which also settled after the township revised its statute.

Emma Bao - 06/24/2013
Elizabeth Greiter - 03/22/2018
Nathaniel Flack - 10/12/2018


compress summary