The City of Springfield has agreed not to enforce a restriction on panhandling it adopted in September.

The restriction was challenged on constitutional grounds by a Springfield panhandler who got a separate restriction ruled unconstitutional earlier this year.

Panhandlers Don Norton, Karen Otterson and Jessica Zenquis filed a lawsuit against the City of Springfield in September after the Springfield City Council approved an ordinance which bans panhandlers from approaching within five feet of potential donors.

Norton and Otterson previously sued the city in 2013 over an ordinance that banned panhandlers from using vocal appeals for money in the city’s downtown. A federal appellate court found that ordinance unconstitutional in August, prompting the city council to pass the other panhandling ordinance. Norton and Otterson’s original lawsuit also alleged harassment by Springfield police, but that aspect of the case has not been addressed. The city has asked the U.S.

Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s ruling.

In the newer case, the panhandlers make the same claim as in their original case: that the city is violating their First Amendment right to free speech.

Steve Rahn, assistant corporation counsel for the City of Springfield, could not be reached for comment.

The panhandlers and the city were due at federal court in Springfield on Dec. 16, but that hearing was canceled when the parties came to a formal agreement on Dec. 15. The agreement stipulates that the city will not enforce its five-foot ordinance in exchange for the panhandlers withdrawing their motion for a temporary injunction. If the city decides to start enforcing the ordinance, the agreement requires the city to issue a press release and wait 60 days.

Although the city says it never started to enforce the ordinance, Mark Weinberg, a Chicago attorney representing the panhandlers, believes the city agreed not to enforce the ordinance because it’s unconstitutional.

A joint motion filed by the city and the panhandlers to formalize the agreement states that the city voluntarily delayed enforcing its five-foot ordinance “in deference to this litigation … pending determination of this case.”

The city could have fought the panhandlers’ motion for an injunction banning enforcement, so the agreement signals a measure of caution on the city’s part.

In the panhandlers’ original case, federal District Judge Richard Mills initially ruled in favor of the city in October 2013. A threemember panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Mills in September 2014, but the appellate court reversed itself in August 2015 after the panhandlers asked the full court – not just three members – to review the case. The city asked the appellate court to reconsider, but that request was denied, so the city appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court early this month.

At issue in both the current lawsuit and the original lawsuit is whether the city is restricting the panhandlers’ “speech” – whether talking or taking other actions – based on the panhandlers’ message or on a legitimate government interest. Regulating speech based on the speaker’s message would violate the First Amendment, but governments are allowed to limit speech if there’s a legitimate benefit for the public, such as safety. The complex question of what constitutes a legitimate government interest is often at the core of free speech cases.

Weinberg says he would be shocked if the U.S. Supreme Court opted to accept the city’s appeal in the original case, but he’s confident in the panhandlers’ case and eager to argue it.

“I hope it’s tomorrow morning,” he said. The city is due to file an answer to the panhandlers’ complaint about the five-foot ordinance by Jan. 25.

Contact Patrick Yeagle at pyeagle@illinoistimes.com.