After years of arrests, litigation, and a costly legal battle, Daytona Beach is facing a decision over what comes next for its panhandling ordinance.

City leaders are scheduled to meet privately with their attorney Wednesday to discuss the city’s options after a federal appeals court ruled that key portions of the city’s anti-panhandling law violate the First Amendment.

The city has not indicated what changes, if any, it plans to make to the ordinance.

The legal fight dates back to 2022 and centers on Daytona Beach’s Ordinance 19-27, which was adopted in February 2019.

The ordinance placed restrictions on panhandling in several locations and circumstances, including near intersections, commercial entrances, the Boardwalk and during certain nighttime hours. It also addressed what the city characterized as aggressive panhandling.

But a federal court ultimately found that key provisions improperly targeted speech based on its content.

Business owners say panhandling remains a concern

For businesses along the Boardwalk, the legal battle comes down to a more immediate concern: what happens when panhandlers approach tourists and pedestrians?

Christina Wiesman, a Boardwalk business owner, said some encounters can become concerning.

“Over here it’s getting dangerous. I mean a lot of people are going out into the street. You see guys that have signs up that say ‘just want a beer.’”

Wiesman said tourists often want to help but may not know how to respond.

“They’re leaching off the tourist. And the tourist don’t know any better. They want to help.”

Racha Stevenson, with Michaels on the Beach, said she has noticed a change in the kinds of requests being made.

“It started with ‘I’m hungry.’ It started with ‘God Bless.’ It started with being reasonable, humble I guess. Then it was all of a sudden ‘I need a beer.’”

At the same time, Wiesman said the issue is not necessarily as simple as criminalizing people who ask for help.

“That’s hard. That pulls on your heartstrings, because you want to be able to help people. And there’s not a lot of shelters around here.”

How the legal fight started

Daytona Beach adopted Ordinance 19-27 on February 6, 2019.

The city argued the restrictions were intended to address public safety and problems associated with solicitation in areas with heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

The ordinance was enforced for several years. According to court filings cited in the case, at least 246 people were arrested under the ordinance between 2019 and 2024.

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit was arrested five times.

In November 2022, Southern Legal Counsel filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four homeless plaintiffs challenging the ordinance.

The plaintiffs argued that asking people for money or help is protected speech under the First Amendment.

In August 2023, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of portions of the ordinance.

Then, on July 18, 2024, U.S. District Judge Wendy Berger ruled against the city, finding key portions of the ordinance unconstitutional and ordering a damages trial.

Daytona Beach appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Appeals court upholds ruling

On June 25, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling on the challenged provisions.

The appeals court found the restrictions were content-based limits on speech and did not survive the strict scrutiny standard required by the First Amendment. The court also upheld $80,000 in damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

The ruling does not mean every part of Daytona Beach’s panhandling ordinance was struck down.

The appeals court’s ruling was limited to provisions for which the plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge them. Some other portions of the ordinance remain on the books, although that does not necessarily mean those provisions have been declared constitutional.

The key constitutional issue was whether the government could treat speech differently simply because of what someone was saying.

In practical terms, the court found a distinction between asking for money and other forms of speech could not be justified simply by pointing to the city’s safety concerns.

That does not prevent Daytona Beach from addressing legitimate safety problems.

The city can still enforce laws against conduct such as blocking traffic, obstructing sidewalks, assault or other unlawful behavior. The constitutional problem is targeting a person’s speech because the message is a request for money.

What’s next for Daytona Beach?

Wednesday night’s closed-door meeting gives the city an opportunity to determine how it wants to proceed.

Among the potential options are:

• Repealing the portions of the ordinance that were struck down.
• Rewriting the ordinance with restrictions that apply to solicitation regardless of the message being communicated.
• Seeking further review from the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Leaving the existing provisions in place but not enforcing the portions blocked by the courts.

Other Florida cities have faced similar legal challenges and, in some cases, repealed their panhandling ordinances.

For Daytona Beach, the decision comes after years of enforcement and litigation.

The city has already faced at least $80,000 in damages from the federal case, in addition to other legal expenses. The litigation has left the city with a difficult balancing act: addressing business and public safety concerns while staying within the constitutional limits outlined by the courts.

For business owners like Wiesman, there are also concerns about the people behind the signs.

“It’s hard. Because some of them are genuinely in a tough place, and others are addicts. It’s sad.”

Now, after more than seven years of debate over how Daytona Beach should handle panhandling, city leaders have to decide whether to abandon the approach that brought them to court — or find a new one that can withstand a constitutional challenge.

The city is expected to discuss its legal options with its attorney at 5:15 p.m. Wednesday. The outcome of that meeting could determine the future of Daytona Beach’s panhandling regulations.