A federal judge recommended on Thursday denying a request to block the City of Dallas’ prohibition against people standing on medians.
Last October, the Dallas City Council passed an ordinance that makes it illegal for people to stand on medians less than 6 feet wide and stipulates that violators can be fined up to $500.
Critics said the ordinance was targeted against homeless people, especially panhandlers.
Although considered by Dallas residents to be a “serious problem” along with homelessness and vagrancy, panhandling is protected under the First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court.
The ordinance faced a legal challenge in December from the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), which claimed the rule unfairly targets homeless people and violates their First Amendment rights.
Attorneys sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of the ordinance in April, arguing that enforcement should be halted because they are likely to win their lawsuit against the City, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
Now, U.S. Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver has issued a recommendation against the proposed injunction.
According to The Dallas Morning News, Judge Toliver concluded that the prohibition is too “narrowly tailored” to violate the First Amendment.
“The city correctly points out that the ordinance leaves open a number of alternative areas where members of the public may engage in all manner of speech such as sidewalks, public parks, and medians wider than six feet,” Toliver wrote, per the DMN. “Plaintiffs do not seriously contend otherwise. The Court finds that the ordinance thereby passes constitutional muster.”
She argued that while plaintiffs have understandable concerns about the ordinance, she believes the evidence for the assertion that “the ordinance actually was enacted for an improper purpose is thin at best,” per the DMN.
Council members who voted in favor of the ban argued that its purpose is to protect pedestrians and not to target panhandlers.
“In context, the ordinance logically followed from that goal since ensuring pedestrian safety necessarily entails restricting pedestrian access to areas deemed to be unsafe,” Toliver wrote, reported the DMN. “The fact that the data the city relies on was perhaps not as specific as plaintiffs would have liked does not lead to a different result.”
The case is now in the hands of U.S. District Judge Ada Brown, who will consider Toliver’s suggestion and rule on whether to deny or grant the injunction.
TCRP attorney Travis Fife said he is “disappointed” with Toliver’s recommendation in a statement sent to The Dallas Express by TCRP press manager Savannah Tarbet.
However, he added, “We are not done fighting for the rights of our clients, and are determining our next step to protect them and everyone in the City from this discriminatory policy.”
“Every day that this policy continues to be in effect, it puts people who are unhoused at risk of getting targeted and criminalized simply for asking for help,” he said. “The city of Dallas has put a target on their backs with this ordinance and is violating the first amendment rights of everyone in the city in the process.”
City of Dallas spokesperson Jenna Carpenter told The Dallas Express the City cannot comment “due to pending litigation.”
While panhandling, homelessness, and vagrancy remain “major” problems in Dallas, a potential solution has been demonstrated in San Antonio. There, the city government has partnered with the nonprofit Haven for Hope to offer housing and supportive services on a single campus to avoid the challenges of having facilities and homeless people scattered throughout the city.
This strategy has polled favorably among Dallas voters, but the City of Dallas has yet to try replicating its success.
