A federal judge has dismissed claims that Las Vegas’ controversial ban on stopping on bridges is unconstitutional. While officials claim that the ban is not designed to target tourists, critics say that its vague nature is a problem.
The Ban Remains a Point of Contention
Las Vegas’ pedestrian bridges have long been tourist-favorite spots for selfies and photos of famous landmarks, such as the Sphere. However, a controversial law prohibited anyone from stopping or standing on the bridges, causing distress among tourists and locals alike.
While officials claim that the law has been designed to prevent unlicensed vendors and performers from blocking the bridges, its wording plainly states that anyone who stops, stands, or causes another person to stop on any of the pedestrian bridges could face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison.
True to officials’ word, no selfie-takers have been arrested in the roughly three years since the controversial law was enacted. However, the law’s wording, as it is currently written, implies that such an arrest could happen someday.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been a vocal critic of the controversial ban, arguing that its vague wording makes it unconstitutional. The lawsuit was launched on behalf of two people. The first of those was Brandon Summers, a musician who has been playing the violin for tips since 2009. The second was Lisa McAllister, a wheelchair user, who worried that taking a pause once she grows tired might incur criminal penalties.
The ACLU argued that the ban on stopping on pedestrian bridges is “the most extreme regulation” introduced recently, since it criminalizes everyday pedestrian behavior. The union also asserted that the law might violate the Constitution, since it fails to accommodate activities protected by the First Amendment. To top it all off, the selective enforcement of this law is also a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the ACLU stated.
A Judge Upheld the Ban
Despite that, US District Judge Jennifer Dorsey rejected the challenge and upheld the ban. According to her, the law does not limit pedestrians’ freedom of speech, since speech-related conduct can be done on the go. At the same time, the law targets unprotected conduct, such as sleeping, loitering, and vending, she argued.
Dorsey agreed that the ban could have been less restrictive and noted that lawmakers could have limited the ban to certain times of day or bridges. Still, she argued that even the current rule does not necessarily hinder speech.
In any case, the ACLU disagreed with the assessment and filed a notice of appeal. The matter is set to be reviewed by the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals.