Panhandling Regulation After Reed v. Town of Gilbert

39 Pages Posted: 29 Sep 2015 Last revised: 12 Apr 2016

See all articles by Anthony Lauriello

Anthony Lauriello

Columbia University, Law School, Students

Date Written: April 9, 2016


In Reed v. Town of Gilbert the Supreme Court rearticulated the standard for when a speech regulation is content based. This determination has already had a large impact on cases involving panhandling regulations and is likely to result in the invalidation of the majority of this nation’s panhandling laws.

This Note will begin with a discussion of First Amendment doctrine and how panhandling is protected speech. This Note will then demonstrate that it is helpful to think of panhandling regulations categorically and explore how these categories of panhandling laws have fared in lower courts. This Note will then discuss the holding in Reed and how jurisdictions have already begun to invalidate panhandling laws. Finally, this Note proposes using the captive-audience doctrine to uphold the validity of some salutary panhandling regulations while invalidating laws that are burdensome and oppressive to free expression.

Suggested Citation

Lauriello, Anthony, Panhandling Regulation After Reed v. Town of Gilbert (April 9, 2016). Columbia Law Review, Vol. 116, No. 3, 2016 (May Forthcoming), Available at SSRN:

Anthony Lauriello (Contact Author)

Columbia University, Law School, Students ( email )

435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10025
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics