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, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the City of Grand Rapids and its police department on Sept. 13, 2011. The statute, M.C.L. § 750.167(1)(h), criminalized all begging in public places, but its enforcement was not compulsory. 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 resulted in violation of the plaintiffs' rights under the Freedom of Speech Clause, 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. In a written opinion, Judge Jonker found that the statute was a content-based restriction on protected speech in a public forum and that it caused disparate treatment, so strict scrutiny applied. The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the statute was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, and thus it failed the test.

On Sept. 13, 2012, the court entered final judgment on two counts and issued a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants and its personnel and officers from enforcing the statute at issue, in response to the plaintiffs' stipulation. The court stayed proceedings on the three remaining counts, pending an appeal. The defendants appealed the decision, and on Aug. 14, 2013, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

Following the appeal, the parties reached settlement agreements and the plaintiffs stipulated to the entry of an order dismissing the remaining counts of their complaint. On Oct. 23, 2013, the district court dismissed the case.

Emma Bao - 06/24/2013
Elizabeth Greiter - 03/22/2018


compress summary