Weeks after being sued, city of Miami repeals anti-panhandling law
Miami city commissioners on Tuesday repealed a city ordinance that criminalized aggressive panhandling.
The repeal comes a few weeks after the Florida Justice Institute filed a lawsuit against the city, arguing that the ordinance violated the First Amendment and did not apply to other forms of speech, like a political candidate asking for support or a church member proselytizing, the Miami Herald previously reported.
The city enacted the ordinance prohibiting 'aggressive' or 'obstructive' panhandling in 2000, according to the lawsuit. Violators could be fined $100 or jailed for up to 30 days for a first offense, or fined $200 and jailed up to 60 days for subsequent offenses.
Miami police officers had arrested nearly 400 people for 'aggressively' panhandling in city limits within the last two years, the lawsuit noted.
'Requesting donations is speech protected by the First Amendment,' Ray Taseff, lead attorney with the Florida Justice Institute, said in a news release last month. 'The City cannot single out panhandling for differential treatment because it deems that speech unpleasant. Arresting poor people because they ask others for help is morally wrong, bad policy, and accomplishes nothing except wasting valuable police resources.'
Miami repealed a previous panhandling ordinance in 2024 after it was sued by the Florida Justice Institute in 2023. The plaintiff in that case, Willie White, who was 65 at the time of the 2023 lawsuit, had been arrested twice for panhandling in the span of a month. The city eventually settled with White for $45,000.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Florida attorney general, now held in contempt, should stop politicizing the job
'Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning.' That's what U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams wrote Tuesday when she found Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in contempt of court for continuing to enforce an immigration law she blocked. Uthmeier was appointed to the job in February by Gov. Ron DeSantis. He swore an oath to uphold the law. But Uthmeier has chosen to put politics above the law. In April, Uthmeier issued a memo directing police agencies to ignore Williams' injunction blocking enforcement of Florida's new immigration law making it a crime for undocumented immigrants to enter the state. 'It is my view that no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce Florida's new illegal entry and reentry laws,' he wrote. The law, passed by the Republican Legislature, was signed by DeSantis earlier this year. A Tampa Bay Times analysis found that 25 people were arrested under the law — after the judge blocked enforcement. At least nine ended up in detention. 'Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court's clear and unambiguous order,' Williams said in her contempt order. Williams could have fined Uthmeier or imposed a jail sentence, the Miami Herald reported. Instead, she ordered Uthmeier to 'file bi-weekly reports detailing whether any arrests, detentions, or law enforcement actions' have been made under the law. The first report is due July 1. It's unclear if Uthmeier will follow the judge's orders. But one thing is clear: Uthmeier has politicized the role of attorney general like no other in recent history. He shows no sign of stopping. Shortly after Williams' order, Uthmeier commented on X: 'If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump's agenda on illegal immigration, so be it.' That leads to a question for voters: How will the state attorney general defend the rule of law while ignoring the ruling of a federal judge? This is the same man who, hours before being found in contempt, retweeted a video of U.S. Rep Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, criticizing President Donald Trump's military parade last Saturday and encouraging people to protest. He offered this comment: 'Denaturalize and Deport.' Omar is a favorite target for many Republicans but is the Florida attorney general saying he favors deporting a naturalized U.S. citizen and a sitting member of Congress based on her dissenting words? Uthemier seems more interested in scoring ideological points than serving Floridians and upholding the law. While carrying out DeSantis' agenda, he also appears to be auditioning for Trump's endorsement. Uthmeier is up for election in 2026. Floridians should take note. Uthmeier was appointed to the role of attorney general, and he is now campaigning to serve a full term. His current, shoot-from-the-hip conduct is an indication of what they can expect if he wins. Floridians need an attorney general who will uphold the law. There's an appropriate place to fight against unfair rulings — and that's in the courts, not on social media. Uthmeier should start by complying with Williams' order and filing the bi-weekly reports. He should also ensure the focus of his office is serving all Floridians, not just those in the governor's mansion and the White House. Williams is right. Fidelity to the rule of law isn't optional for the 'people's lawyer.' If Uthmeier is unable or doesn't want to meet that standard, voters should consider whether he's suited to serve a full term. Click here to send the letter.
CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
VA secretary refutes rumors of health care denial to Democrats, the unwed
For many U.S. veterans, fear is spreading over rumors that an executive order signed by President Trump gives VA doctors the right to refuse treatment to unmarried veterans and Democrats. Doug Collins, secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs, calls the rumors misinformation, citing the department's Directive 1019, which governs all medical services provided by the VA and prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status or political affiliation. Legal minds point to two clauses of the U.S. Constitution that prove the executive order signed by Mr. Trump does not trump the constitution. "The most important clause in the Constitution is the Supremacy Clause, Article Six of the Constitution, that says the Constitution treaties and laws made by Congress are the supreme law of the land," said David Schultz, political science professor at Hamline University. "And the reason why I say that is presidential executive orders do not supersede federal law." Schultz says not treating someone based on political party affiliation gets into all sorts of First Amendment, free speech-type issues. "There is a whole line of court cases that go back 50 years that the government may not discriminate against you based upon your partisan political persuasion," Schultz said. Collins said in a statement, "all eligible veterans will always be welcome at the VA and will always receive the benefits and services they've earned under the law." Schultz adds the fact that doctors take an oath to "do no harm" plays a big role in how all patients are treated. "If somebody comes in and needs treatment, and you refuse to treat that person and that person dies, it's not impossible that it could kick in some criminal law, such as some homicide, manslaughter that might kick in, too," he said. The VA has asked that the reports be retracted. Veterans who have questions and concerns are encouraged to call their local VA or reach out to their Congressional representative.
The Hill
10 hours ago
- The Hill
X sues New York over social media disclosure law
Elon Musk's X sued the state of New York on Tuesday over a law requiring social media sites to detail how they moderate hate speech, extremism, misinformation and other types of content on their platforms. X argues the law, which is set to go into effect Thursday, violates the First Amendment by compelling companies to disclose 'highly sensitive and controversial speech.' 'The law thus impermissibly interferes with the First Amendment-protected editorial judgments of companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize such speech on their platforms,' the lawsuit reads. The measure, known as the Stop Hiding Hate Act, requires social media platforms to publicly post their terms of service, as well as to submit a report to the New York attorney general about their moderation of hate speech, racism, extremism, radicalization, disinformation, misinformation, harassment and foreign political interference. Companies are subject to fines of up to $15,000 a day for failing to comply with the law. Musk's social media site, which he bought as Twitter in 2022, contends the reporting requirements are a 'carbon copy' of provisions of a California law that were blocked in court last year. California ultimately agreed to drop the provisions as part of a settlement with X. New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D) and assemblymember Grace Lee (D), who sponsored the measure, argued Tuesday that it does not infringe on social media firms' First Amendment rights and instead requires 'narrowly-tailored' disclosures to help consumers decide between platforms. 'We were proud to sponsor the Stop Hiding Hate Act, in partnership with the Anti-Defamation League, because social media companies, including X, are cesspools of hate speech consisting of antisemitism, racism, Islamophobia and anti-LGBTQ bias, yet those platforms have consistently failed to inform the public about their policies regarding hatred and misinformation,' they said in a joint statement. 'We're confident that the court will reject this attempt by X to use the First Amendment as a shield against providing New Yorkers with much needed transparency around their conduct,' the lawmakers added. New York has passed several measures in recent years taking aim at the potential harms associated with social media platforms. Last June, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed into law a bill requiring platforms to restrict addictive feeds for kids. State lawmakers also approved a measure Tuesday requiring warning labels for social media platforms. The bill now heads to Hochul's desk for signing.
