The Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that Albuquerque’s panhandling ordinance violates First Amendment rights because the ordinance is not sufficiently narrow.

Albuquerque’s panhandling ordinance prohibits pedestrians from standing or assembling on streets, medians, highway exit and entrance ramps, and major intersections. Pedestrians are also barred from talking to or interacting with drivers and occupants of vehicles. Under the ordinance, it is illegal for anyone in a vehicle to interact with pedestrians. The ordinance took effect in December 2017 but was never fully implemented.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the ordinance on behalf of panhandlers, protestors, and people who pass out items to the needy. The ACLU argued that the ordinance was a direct attack on panhandlers, the homeless, and the First Amendment.

City officials argued that the ordinance was in place to address pedestrian safety concerns, and the restrictions were narrowly tailored to not restrict speech more than necessary.  

The appellate court upheld a 2019 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Black, who ruled that the ordinance was not sufficiently narrow to avoid violating First Amendment rights. Judge Jerome Holmes wrote in the appellate court opinion that Albuquerque “is unable to establish that the Ordinance does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further its interest in pedestrian safety.” Further, Albuquerque “almost completely failed to even consider alternative measures that restrict or burden the speech at issue less severely than does the Ordinance.”

Leon Howard, legal director for ACLU New Mexico, supported the ruling, stating “if you want to deal with the issue of panhandling, there are more holistic measures to deal with that issue.”