Court deals blow to Daytona Beach panhandling law. What's ahead

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on June 25 agreed with a lower court that some parts of the Daytona Beach panhandling laws are unconstitutional.

But the court didn't consider the constitutionality of other parts of the ordinance because the court found the plaintiffs who sued the city don't have standing to challenge those sections.

Dennis Scott, Chad Driggers, Douglas Willis and George Rowland, sued the city in November 2022 over its panhandling laws, with the help of Southern Legal Counsel. All of the men had panhandled in the city and had been threatened with arrest because of the ordinance, according to the Court of Appeals opinion. Driggers was arrested for panhandling under the law.

"We know we represent some people that are not the most popular. But we are heartened that the appellate court is standing up for the First Amendment rights of everybody, not just those who ... have power, who are popular in society," plaintiffs' attorney Dan Marshall told The News-Journal.

The Daytona Beach law had been in effect since 2019. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Wendy Berger issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the city's panhandling ordinance.

In July 2024, Berger ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional based on the First Amendment. She called it a content-based ordinance because it applied just to "solicitations for charitable donations."

The city appealed the decision to The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The appeals court's recent decision partially agreed with Berger's ruling.

"For the most part, we too agree - the ordinance imposes content-based restrictions on the plaintiffs' speech, and those restrictions fail strict scrutiny," according to the court's opinion.

But the court also decided that the plaintiff's did not establish standing to challenge some of the provisions of the law. The opinion also states that "the district court overstepped its authority when it issued what was, in effect, a universal injunction. Accordingly, we affirm in part and vacate in part the district court's order."

The court upheld the award of $80,000 total in damages to the four men. Commissioners had already OK'd paying those damages if the city lost its appeal.

What does the Court of Appeals decision on Daytona Beach panhandling lawsuit say?

The court affirmed the District Court's decision that the following sections of the city's panhandling law violate the First Amendment:

• "It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in Aggressive Panhandling on any sidewalk, highway, street, roadway, right-of-way, parking lot, park, or other public or semi-public area or in any public building lobby, entranceway, plaza or common area, public forum or limited public forum within the city limits of the City of Daytona Beach."
• It is illegal to panhandle "Within twenty (20) feet, in any direction, from any entrance or exit of commercially zoned property" and "within twenty (20) feet, in any direction, of any bus or trolley stop or any public transportation facility."
• It is illegal to panhandle "Within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of any signalized intersection of: 1) arterial roads; 2) collector roads; and 3) arterial and collector roads" and on the Boardwalk.
• It is illegal to "Approach an operator or other occupant of a motor vehicle for the purpose of panhandling, soliciting or begging, or offering to perform a service in connection with such vehicle, or otherwise soliciting the sale of goods or services, if such panhandling, soliciting or begging is done in an aggressive manner."
• It is illegal to "panhandle, solicit or beg" when it's dark outside.

The appeals court didn't consider the constitutionality of several provisions in the ordinance, because the plaintiffs hadn't established that those laws would "chill" their freedom of expression by hindering their panhandling routine.

"What it said was basically these particular clients can't challenge the things that criminalize things they don't do. But that doesn't mean that it's constitutional," Marshall said.

The court of appeals "vacated" the district court's decision that those items were unconstitutional.

Plaintiff's attorney, Daytona Beach Mayor Derrick Henry disagree on opinion's implications

Marshall said the city has 90 days to decide whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the city makes an appeal, there is no deadline for the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear the case, he said.

The city declined to comment on the case when asked by The News-Journal. The city's attorney, Michael Kahn, declined to comment on June 29 because he wanted to talk with city officials first.

But Marshall and one city official appear to disagree on what the opinion means for the city.

Daytona Beach Mayor Derrick Henry weighed in on the matter on Facebook. He stated that the appeals court "did not strike down our entire ordinance."

"Instead, it found that several specific sections violated the First Amendment because they regulated requests for money in ways the Court determined were unconstitutional," he stated. "Other sections were not ruled on because the Court found the plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to challenge them. As a result, portions of the ordinance remain in place while others can no longer be enforced."

Marshall said in his perspective, it "would not be smart for the city to try and enforce the ordinance again" because it would open the city to more liability.

"I think (Mayor Henry) should talk to his attorneys because the sections of the ordinance that the court said our clients didn't have standing to challenge, they have the same constitutional problems as the ones that were found unconstitutional," Marshall said.

Henry pointed out in his Facebook post that there other laws on the books to deter criminal activity.

"Threats, assaults, trespassing, blocking traffic, disorderly conduct, harassment, and other violations of the law remain enforceable," he said. "Our officers will continue working every day to protect residents, visitors, and businesses while respecting the constitutional rights of every individual."

The city is working with its attorney on reviewing the opinion, Henry stated. He added that Daytona is "committed to balancing compassion with public safety" by offering support to those in need while protecting neighborhoods.

"We will determine which provisions should be revised or replaced so they comply with the Constitution while continuing to protect public safety and the quality of life our residents expect," Henry stated.

- Sheldon Gardner covers Volusia County government, including Volusia County beaches, the city of Daytona Beach and local governments in West Volusia. This story includes reporting from former staff writer Eileen Zaffiro-Kean.

This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: Court deals blow to Daytona Beach panhandling law. What's ahead

Reporting by Sheldon Gardner, Daytona Beach News-Journal / The Daytona Beach News-Journal

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Copyright Reuters or USA Today Network via Reuters Connect

This story was originally published June 30, 2026 at 11:07 AM.