Attorneys have asked a local judge for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the enforcement of a City of Dallas ordinance that was passed in October. The municipal regulation prohibits standing on medians less than six feet wide and stipulates that violators can be fined up to $500.
Critics say the ordinance is intended to target panhandlers.
However, panhandling is not mentioned in the text of the ordinance itself, and council members who voted for it claimed its purpose is to protect pedestrians.
In December, the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) filed a lawsuit against the City on behalf of four plaintiffs, including two disabled combat veterans, alleging that the ordinance unfairly targets homeless people and violates their First Amendment rights, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
Panhandling is protected under the First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court.
A majority of Dallas residents consider panhandling to be a “serious problem” in the city, according to polling conducted by The Dallas Express.
The TCRP, along with the law firm Waters Kraus & Paul and the Southern Methodist University (SMU) First Amendment Law Clinic, went to federal court on Thursday attempting to convince Honorable Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver to halt enforcement of the ordinance until the court rules on whether it is constitutional.
The attorneys argued that enforcement should be halted because they are likely to win their lawsuit against the City, citing an Oklahoma case where a similar ordinance was struck down. In the meantime, enforcement of the ordinance could cause unjust harm to those it is enforced against, they claimed.
City attorneys maintained that the ordinance is a public safety measure and not an attack against the homeless, as reported by the Dallas Observer.
The City of Dallas does not comment on pending litigation.
In an email sent to The Dallas Express by TCRP press manager Savannah Tarbet, the organization disputes the City’s claims.
The email quotes TCRP Criminal Injustice Program Director Dustin Rynders, who said, “Since passing this ordinance and facing our legal challenge, the City of Dallas has tried to sell this ordinance to its residents as a way to increase traffic safety, despite overwhelming evidence from City Council meetings revealing that the true purpose was to target and criminalize people who are poor and engage in panhandling.”
“They could have chosen to invest in real solutions for people like our clients, veterans who are struggling to make ends meet and stay housed, but instead the city chose to criminalize and directly attack the first amendment right of all residents,” Rynders continued. “While we await a ruling from the judge, we remain hopeful that the ordinance will be overturned.”
When the ordinance was passed, Council Member Cara Mendelsohn said it was intended to protect those who “just plant themselves” in the medians, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
She noted that 68 Dallas pedestrians were killed in 2021, and 53 had died in 2022 from January to October when the ordinance was passed.
Council Member Gay Donnell Willis added that the ordinance would “give marshals a tool to help people in medians who are high” and move them to a safer location.
The only council member to vote against the ordinance was Adam Bazaldua.
He said the ordinance would effectively “criminalize panhandling” and described the public safety explanation as “extremely disingenuous.”
Bazaldua claimed it is “absolutely despicable” to “fine people for standing in a median.”
The council member’s comments were submitted as evidence in this case during Thursday’s hearing, according to the TCRP’s statement to The Dallas Express.
The plaintiffs in the case are Alton Waggoner, Lafayette “Teri” Heishman, Hannah Lebovits, and Kawana Scott.
Waggoner and Heishman are both homeless and use public media to ask for money. They claim that this ordinance violates their constitutionally-protected right to do so.
Lebovits, assistant professor of public affairs and planning at the University of Texas at Arlington, conducts research on Dallas’ homeless population while trying to assist them when possible. She claims this ordinance would interfere with her work.
Scott is a local activist who chairs the DFW Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression. She said her protests often take place on medians narrower than six feet, and thus this ordinance would impede on her activism — which is also protected by the First Amendment.
Tarbet told The Dallas Express that both Waggoner and Scott testified on Thursday.
Attorney Travis Fife with TCRP said that the court will conduct its second hearing on April 27 and that additional arguments must be submitted by May 1.
The lawyer said he “look[s] forward to a rigorous and thoughtful opinion whenever it comes out.”
