A coalition made up of legal advocates and a law firm is suing Dallas over a new rule that subjects people to fines of up to $500 for standing on road medians, arguing it is unconstitutional and will disproportionately impact homeless residents.
The federal lawsuit was filed Wednesday against the city, Police Chief Eddie García and interim city marshal David Pughes on behalf of four Dallas-area residents, including a 68-year-old veteran without stable shelter who the suit said still isn’t able to afford a $460 citation he received in March 2020 for an existing city law that bans pedestrians from soliciting motorists on public roadways.
The other three plaintiffs are a University of Texas at Arlington professor, a local activist and a second veteran who has experienced homelessness for several years but currently lives in a home subsidized by the Veterans Administration in Dallas.
All four people either regularly solicit donations from drivers, give donations or engage in political speech from medians, said Travis Fife, a legal fellow with Austin-based nonprofit the Texas Civil Rights Project.
“It’s a cruel ordinance that criminalizes poverty and denies the residents of Dallas their constitutionally protected First Amendment rights,” he said. The Texas Civil Rights Project filed the lawsuit along with SMU Dedman School of Law’s First Amendment Clinic and Dallas-based law firm Waters, Kraus & Paul.
“We’re filing this lawsuit because we see this as an urgent matter,” Fife said. “Laws like this push people further to the margins and exacerbate the problems that the city of Dallas purports that they want to solve.”
Fife said the veteran who can’t afford the citation had his driver’s license suspended because of the unpaid ticket and can’t secure stable housing without a valid ID.
Fife cited similar ordinances passed by city councils in Oklahoma City and Albuquerque that federal appeals courts have overturned after finding they violated free speech. Courts have found activities done on medians, such as panhandling and protesting, are protected by the Constitution.
Several legal experts told The Dallas Morning News last month that the legal precedent likely would lead to Dallas’ median ban being challenged.
Pughes didn’t responded to a request for comment Wednesday. García and a city spokeswoman declined to comment.
The Dallas restriction was approved by the City Council in October and bans pedestrians from standing or walking on roadway medians less than 6 feet wide, in the middle of streets without medians and in clear zones like bike lanes and road shoulders. It exempts permitted workers, as well as pedestrians directly crossing the street, giving or receiving emergency aid, or on the median while following police instructions.
City officials since at least last year have publicly presented the restriction as a way to address complaints stemming from people panhandling while on the dividing strip or in the middle of streets where there is no median. It was rebranded in the months leading up to the City Council’s Oct. 26 approval as being driven by pedestrian traffic safety concerns.
Dallas Police Assistant Chief Michael Igo told council members in October before the vote that he knew of only one case this year where evidence showed a pedestrian was struck and killed by a vehicle after stepping off a road median.
García, during the same meeting, said median enforcement would be a low priority for police officers, and Pughes said city marshals wouldn’t be routinely patrolling medians around the city.
The lawsuit cites city presentations and council members’ public statements among arguments that Dallas’ median ban targets people who panhandle.
“The ordinance is the product of a years-long effort orchestrated by Dallas councilmembers to score political points by attacking people engaged in the unpopular speech of requesting financial help,” the lawsuit said. “It rests upon a manufactured, post-hoc public safety justification unsupported by any evidence demonstrating that people engaging in expressive activities on areas affected by the ordinance pose any threat to pedestrian and roadway safety.”
