Norton v. City of Springfield, Ill.

Dist. Ct. erred in finding in favor of defendant-City in action seeking injunction to bar enforcement of defendant’s anti-panhandling ordinance that banned within City’s downtown district oral requests for money, but allowed individuals to hold up signs requesting money or make oral requests to send money at later time. Under Reed, 135 S.Ct. 2887, instant ordinance is unconstitutional because it regulates speech “because of topic discussed,” without defendant establishing compelling justification for doing so. Fact that defendant’s ordinance is neutral with respect to ideas or viewpoints is insufficient, since speech regulation targeted at specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within such subject matter.