Young v. New York Transit Authority

The case of Young v. New York Transit Authority (903 F.2d 146 [2nd Cir. 1990]) was brought on behalf of William B. Young Jr., and Joseph Walley, among others, by an organization representing homeless people against the New York Transit Authority and a variety of other New York transportation entities. This was a class action challenging a transit authority regulation prohibiting begging and panhandling in the subway system in New York City. Enforcement of the regulation had been enjoined by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and this decision was appealed. The Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, Judge Altimari, held that the regulation did not violate the First Amendment as had been charged and reversed and vacated the previous ruling.

In 1989, the Legal Action Center for the Homeless (LACH) filed suit in the district court on behalf of itself and the two homeless men named above as representative plaintiffs for a class of homeless and needy persons engaged in panhandling in the New York subway system. the original complaint stated that the prohibition against begging and panhandling in the subway violated the rights of free speech, due process, and equal protection of the law. The complaint claimed that enforcement of the regulation violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as an article of the New York State Constitution. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief while the case was pending and so

Related Essays

Young v. New York Transit Authority The case of Young v. New York Transit Authority (903 F.2d 146 [2nd Cir. 1990]) was brought on behalf of William B. Young Jr., and .... (1589 6 )

The case of Young v. New York Transit Authority The case of Young v. New York Transit Authority (903 F.2d 146 [2nd Cir. 1990]) was brought on behalf of William B. Young Jr., and .... (1589 6 )

ENVIRONMENTS PROPITIOUS TO LEARNING ENGLISH AS .... The environment in which a young child can best acquire and learn a second language .... New York, NY: Regents Publishing Company, Inc .... GATHERCOLE, V. (September 1988 .... (3802 15 )

ence was offered that the presence of beggars and panhandlers on the subway was perceived by the ridership as a problem. The district court considered these issues and granted the injunction. The court found that a total ban on begging and panhandling did not serve a narrow state interest and that the rules should have been designed to constitute reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The court also found that there were serious questions as to the constitutionality of such a ban in terms of it being an infringement of free speech. The appeals court took this up and considered the claim by the plaintiffs that begging is speech. The issue is a question of whether this particular conduct constitutes speech for the purposes of the Constitution. The plaintiffs stated that whenever a homeless or needy person is extending his hand, he is communicating. The appeals court questioned this: We initiate our discussion by expressing grave doubt as to whether begging and panhandling in the subway are sufficiently imbued with a communicative character to justify constitutional protection (153). The court reasoned first that common sense shows us that begging is more "conduct" than "speech," but conduct can have sufficient

Category: Government - Y