Federal lawsuit challenges Mississippi solicitation law

Micah West, a senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the law criminalizes communication about poverty and homelessness rather than addressing the root causes. "You can't end homelessness by simply arresting and jailing people," West said. "Homelessness ends with a home." 

West said the law targets people who communicate messages of need. "We all have a First Amendment right, a constitutional right, to talk to each other when we're in need and need help or charity from each other," he said. 

Advocates involved in the case say more than 1,000 Mississippians are experiencing homelessness and cite recent data showing homelessness in the state has risen by roughly 20 percent over the past year. 

Law enforcement officials say the law was designed to improve public safety. Capitol Police Chief Bo Luckey said the permitting process could reduce the number of people standing in busy intersections and along roadways, lowering risks for both pedestrians and drivers. 

"The permitting process itself is going to help with the safety of these individuals on the side of the road," Luckey said. 

He said limiting the number of people soliciting in a single intersection could reduce dangerous interactions between pedestrians and vehicles. "Anytime that we can put in place processes to cut down on the amount of people that are in those areas, I think that's going to benefit greatly toward trying to provide a safer environment for the public," he said. 

According to Luckey, Capitol Police have issued 27 permits under the law. He said no applicants have been denied and, as of late May, no one had been charged with violating the Safe Solicitation Act. Officers, he said, have focused on educating people about the requirements and helping them through the process. 

Joshua Thom, legal director for the ACLU of Mississippi, said the lawsuit centers on people who depend on public donations to survive. "For our plaintiffs and all people similarly situated to our plaintiffs, it's a matter of being able to eat. It's a matter of being able to live from day to day," Thom said. 

He said the permit requirement raises broader constitutional concerns. "Having to ask the government before you can exercise your First Amendment rights, having to pay money to the government before you can exercise your First Amendment rights, is something courts look at very closely," he said. 

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare the law unconstitutional and prevent state officials from enforcing it. A hearing date has not yet been set.