It usually starts with a simple question: “Can you spare a few dollars?” Harmless enough, or so it seems.
But behind that little question is a surprisingly complicated constitutional tug-of-war involving free speech, public spaces, traffic, harassment, and the government's sometimes understandable desire to make uncomfortable things disappear.
Panhandling has been regulated for centuries. The twist is that modern courts increasingly ask a different question: Is the government regulating the begging or the behavior that comes with it? That distinction turns out to be everything.
So, what is panhandling? PANHANDLING is the act of asking another person for money, property, or something of value, ordinarily in a public place.
The word is not itself a legal term with one nationwide definition. Different jurisdictions define it somewhat differently, but a common formulation is an in-person request for an immediate donation of money or something of value.
A person holding a sign saying “Please help” may therefore be panhandling even without speaking; whether a particular ordinance covers that conduct depends on how the ordinance is written.
There is an important legal distinction, however, between the request itself and what the person does while making the request. Asking, “Could you spare five dollars?” is speech. Blocking someone's path, threatening them, touching them, stepping into traffic, or refusing to leave after being told to do so is conduct.
Modern First Amendment law generally gives the government considerably more room to regulate the latter than the former.
A short history of panhandling
Begging is obviously much older than the United States. English poor laws, vagrancy laws, and local ordinances historically treated public begging as a social-order problem. Early American communities inherited much of that approach. Governments commonly regulated vagrancy, loitering, begging, and public solicitation together, often giving police substantial discretion to move people along.
The word “panhandler” itself is comparatively young. The word “panhandler,” meaning someone who begs, dates to at least 1893, although the related term “panhandle” was being used in the sense of begging decades earlier. The likely image is the extended arm or hand of someone asking for money.
For most of American history, therefore, the legal question was not particularly complicated: Could the government prohibit begging in public? The answer was generally treated as yes.
The constitutional landscape began changing in the latter part of the twentieth century. Courts increasingly recognized that asking for money can carry a message: I am poor; I need help; this is what I need; please help me. Once begging was understood as communicative activity rather than merely undesirable conduct, the First Amendment entered the picture.
And that produced the modern rule:
The government generally cannot outlaw the message merely because the message is a request for money. It can, however, regulate the manner, place, and circumstances in which the request is made provided the regulation is actually constitutional.
That distinction explains most of the seemingly contradictory panhandling laws around the country.
The legal progression
1. 1972-78: Vague Alaska vagrancy & loitering laws.
In 1972 in Marks v. City of Anchorage, 500 P.2d 644 (Alaska 1972), the Alaska Supreme Court struck down an Anchorage disorderly-conduct ordinance as unconstitutionally vague, warning about laws that left too much discretion in the hands of police. Six years later in Brown v. Municipality of Anchorage, 584 P.2d 35 (Alaska 1978), the court struck down another Anchorage loitering ordinance for essentially the same reason. The cases weren't panhandling cases, but they reflected a growing judicial suspicion of laws that allowed police to decide, on the street and in real time, who was behaving suspiciously or unlawfully.
Why it matters: Marks and Brown weren't panhandling cases, but they helped establish an important principle: police may regulate harmful conduct, but they cannot be given unlimited discretion to decide which public behavior, or speech, is acceptable.
Although this wasn't a panhandler case, it is an important starting point. Schaumburg, Illinois, required charitable organizations soliciting contributions on streets or door-to-door to obtain permits and meet a requirement that at least 75% of the money collected be used directly for charitable purposes. Solicitation without a permit could result in a fine of up to $500 per offense.
The Supreme Court struck the ordinance down. The Court reasoned that charitable solicitation is not merely a financial transaction; it communicates information, ideas, and advocacy. The government may regulate solicitation, but it cannot impose restrictions that substantially interfere with protected expression without sufficient justification.
Why it matters: The Court established an important foundation: asking for money can itself be protected speech.
Now we get to actual begging.
New York's Penal Law § 240.35(1) made it a crime to “loiter, remain or wander about in a public place for the purpose of begging.” The Second Circuit struck that provision down under the First Amendment.
The court recognized that begging frequently communicates more than the bare request for money. A person's words, gestures, appearance, and circumstances can communicate a message of poverty and need. The government could regulate abusive or disruptive behavior accompanying begging, but it could not simply criminalize being in a public place for the purpose of begging.
Interestingly, the New York legislature later repealed the specific begging provision. As of 2026, § 240.35 no longer contains the old “purpose of begging” subsection.
Why it matters: Loper is one of the cases that moved American law from “begging is conduct” toward “begging is speech.”
4. 2014–2015: Thayer v. City of Worcester, 755 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2014), followed by the Supreme Court's Reed remand.
Massachusetts illustrates the next step: the government does not have to tolerate aggressive panhandling merely because ordinary panhandling is protected.
Worcester adopted an ordinance prohibiting aggressive begging and panhandling. It targeted conduct such as threatening someone, blocking passage, touching someone without consent, continuing after a negative response, and various forms of roadside solicitation.
The First Circuit initially upheld most of the ordinance at the preliminary-injunction stage. It did, however, single out the blanket prohibition on nighttime solicitation for separate treatment. The ordinance carried a fine of up to $50 per day or community service, and police could order a person to stop and could arrest the person for failing to comply.
Then came Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), which made the constitutional analysis of content-based speech restrictions substantially more demanding. The Supreme Court vacated the First Circuit's judgment in Thayer and sent it back for reconsideration. The subsequent district-court proceedings ultimately found Worcester's nighttime ban unconstitutional.
Why it matters: There is a huge difference between: “You may not ask people for money,” and “You may not threaten, touch, block, intimidate, or interfere with people while asking them for money.”
The second category is much easier for a government to defend.
Reed was not a panhandling case. It involved a church's signs. But it changed panhandling litigation because the Supreme Court emphasized that a law regulating speech because of what the speech says is content-based and presumptively subject to strict scrutiny.
That became enormously important because many anti-panhandling ordinances did something like this:
“You may talk to people, hold signs, and ask them questions but you may not ask them for money.”
That sounds content-neutral until you look at the words the ordinance actually regulates. The law is permitting ordinary conversation while singling out requests for money.
The Supreme Court said that a law does not escape strict scrutiny merely because the government has a perfectly reasonable motive.
Illinois provided a textbook example of Reed's effect.
Springfield prohibited oral requests for immediate donations in its downtown historic district. But a person could hold up a sign asking for money, and a person could orally ask someone to send money later.
The Seventh Circuit initially upheld the ordinance. After Reed, however, the court reconsidered the case and reversed itself.
The problem was obvious: the ordinance distinguished speech based on what the speaker was asking for and when the requested money would be transferred. That made the law content-based. The court ordered an injunction against enforcement.
Springfield subsequently repealed the challenged panhandling ordinance in 2017.
Why it matters: This is where the modern doctrine becomes much clearer: You cannot make “asking for money” the forbidden subject matter while allowing other speech.
California demonstrates the other side of the equation. California Penal Code § 647(c) makes it a misdemeanor to accost another person in a public place for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms. The provision remains on the books.
But that does not mean California has carte blanche to arrest somebody merely because the person politely asks for money. The word accost and the statute's application have constitutional significance, particularly after the modern First Amendment cases.
California also separately criminalizes willfully and maliciously obstructing the free movement of another person on a street, sidewalk, or other public place. That offense is a misdemeanor.
That distinction is instructive: “Give me money” raises a First Amendment problem. “Move, or I'm going to block the sidewalk until you give me money” presents a very different constitutional case.
Texas takes a more location-and-safety-oriented approach. Section 552.007 prohibits a person from standing in a roadway to solicit a ride, contribution, employment, or business from someone in a vehicle, subject to an exception for authorized charitable solicitation.
The important point is that Texas is not saying: “You cannot ask for money.” It is saying, essentially: “You cannot stand in a roadway and solicit motorists.”
That is a place and safety regulation, rather than a general prohibition on the message. A violation falling under the chapter's general penalty provision is punishable by a fine of $1 to $200 when no other penalty applies.
This is precisely the kind of distinction courts tend to examine closely: Is the government regulating the message, or is it regulating dangerous activity associated with the message?
Charlottesville, Virginia, adopted restrictions on solicitation in particular locations and prohibited solicitation in an “aggressive manner.” The ordinance defined aggressive conduct to include things such as unwanted physical contact, threatening or intimidating approaches, continuing after a negative response under specified circumstances, and intentionally blocking someone's passage.
The challenged ordinance classified violations as a Class 3 misdemeanor.
The Fourth Circuit's analysis is useful because it illustrates the constitutional middle ground: the fact that panhandling is protected does not prevent a city from addressing genuinely coercive conduct accompanying it.
This case gets dragged into panhandling discussions constantly, even though it wasn't a panhandling case.
Grants Pass involved public camping and homelessness. The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not categorically prohibit governments from enforcing generally applicable public-camping laws against homeless people. In doing so, the Court effectively rejected the Ninth Circuit's Martin v. City of Boise rule that had restricted enforcement when shelter beds were unavailable.
That matters here because people sometimes make this leap: “The Supreme Court said cities can criminalize homelessness, so cities can criminalize panhandling.”
Uhhh, no. And for the record, Grants Pass was principally an Eighth Amendment punishment case involving camping, not a decision eliminating First Amendment protection for begging or panhandling.
10. 2025: Alabama: Section 13A-11-9 and the continuing fight over begging laws.
Alabama provides a particularly good modern example of the tension between old statutes and modern First Amendment doctrine. Alabama Code § 13A-11-9 historically made it a violation to loiter, remain, or wander about in a public place for the purpose of begging.
In 2025, under Singleton v. Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, No. 23-11163 (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an injunction against enforcement of Alabama's begging and pedestrian-solicitation statutes because, under controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent, begging is protected speech and Alabama's statutes broadly criminalized begging itself rather than merely dangerous conduct accompanying begging.
The interesting part is the history: Alabama's current begging provision dates to 1977, long before the modern line of First Amendment panhandling cases.
The case illustrates something that happens repeatedly in this area of law: a statute can sit on the books for decades and become constitutionally unenforceable after the constitutional law surrounding it changes.
11. 2026: Scott v. City of Daytona Beach, Nos. 24-12662 & 24-12964 (11th Cir. June 25, 2026).
And this brings us essentially to the present.
In June 2026, the Eleventh Circuit decided Scott v. City of Daytona Beach. Daytona Beach's ordinance was extremely broad. It prohibited “aggressive panhandling” throughout the city and also prohibited ordinary panhandling in numerous locations—including near businesses, transit facilities, ATMs, parking facilities, restrooms, schools, intersections, and the boardwalk. The ordinance carried a maximum penalty of 60 days in jail, a $500 fine, or both.
The Eleventh Circuit held that panhandling is protected First Amendment speech and concluded that many of the ordinance's restrictions were content-based and failed strict scrutiny. The court enjoined enforcement of the challenged provisions and affirmed the basic proposition that panhandling falls within the First Amendment's protection.
That is a particularly important modern case because it demonstrates that Reed was not some theoretical 2015 decision that mattered only to church signs. Courts are still using its content-based-speech analysis to invalidate modern panhandling ordinances in 2026.
So where does that leave the law?
The easiest way to understand modern panhandling law is to divide it into three boxes.
Box 1: The request itself
“Can you spare five dollars?”
“Please help me.”
“I'm homeless and need money for food.”
“Please donate.”
These are generally protected speech. The fact that the speaker is asking for money does not automatically remove First Amendment protection. Loper, Norton, and the modern Eleventh Circuit cases make that point particularly clear.
Box 2: Reasonable place, time, and manner restrictions
A government has substantially more room to regulate things such as:
-
standing in a roadway;
-
physically blocking a sidewalk;
-
obstructing traffic;
-
soliciting someone inside a particular restricted facility;
-
entering private property after being told to leave;
-
interfering with pedestrians;
-
creating an objectively dangerous traffic situation.
But the restriction still has to satisfy the First Amendment. Calling something a “time, place, and manner” regulation does not magically make it constitutional.
Box 3: Aggressive or coercive conduct
This is where governments have their strongest case.
A law aimed at:
-
threatening someone;
-
touching someone without consent;
-
blocking someone's movement;
-
following someone in a threatening manner;
-
demanding money after an unequivocal refusal;
-
stepping into traffic;
-
creating an actual safety hazard;
is regulating conduct associated with panhandling, rather than simply prohibiting the communicative request for money.
The upshot to all this is that the First Amendment may protect the request, but it doesn't come with a constitutional coupon book for sidewalks, traffic lanes, private property, or personal space.
Governments can regulate genuinely dangerous, threatening, or obstructive conduct. What they generally cannot do is slap a “NO BEGGING” sign on speech simply because they don't like the message.
In other words, the Constitution may protect your right to ask for a dollar, but it doesn't promise you'll get one.
