Doe v. City of Lynn, 36 N.E.3d 18

Lynn enacted a 2011 ordinance barring level‑2 and level‑3 registered sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of any school or park, with narrow exceptions; the rule effectively excludes such offenders from ~95% of residential parcels in the city.
The ordinance imposes a $300 daily fine for continued residence in restricted areas after notice and notifies landlords/parole/probation and the Sex Offender Registry Board upon repeat violations.
Plaintiffs (a certified class of level‑2 and level‑3 registrants) were served move notices and sued, alleging the ordinance violated the Home Rule Amendment, federal and state ex post facto clauses, and other constitutional rights; they moved for partial summary judgment.
The Superior Court invalidated the ordinance under the Home Rule Amendment, concluding legislative intent to occupy the field of post‑incarceration regulation of sex offenders.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the ordinance inconsistent with Massachusetts’ comprehensive statutory scheme for oversight of sex offenders (registry law, civil commitment, community parole supervision), and therefore invalid under art. 89 §6 and the Home Rule Procedures Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ordinance is inconsistent with State law/Home Rule preempted the field of sex‑offender regulation	Ordinance exceeds city power and conflicts with State statutory scheme governing registration, classification, civil commitment, and postrelease controls	City argued ordinance is a valid exercise of municipal police power, supplements State law to protect children, and no clear legislative preemption exists	Held: Ordinance inconsistent with comprehensive State scheme; Legislature intended State control, so ordinance invalid under Home Rule
Whether municipalities may impose residency restrictions absent explicit statutory authorization	Plaintiffs: local bans improperly intrude on legislative domain and frustrate registry goals	City: municipalities have broad home‑rule authority to protect local public safety	Held: Broad local bans frustrate State monitoring and classification goals; preempted
Ex post facto challenge	Plaintiffs: ordinance applied retroactively and increases punishment	City: ordinance civil/regulatory, not punitive	Held: Court did not reach merits of ex post facto claim (resolution unnecessary)
Right to travel and other constitutional claims	Plaintiffs asserted travel and other constitutional violations	City disputed those claims	Held: Court declined to address these broader constitutional claims after resolving Home Rule preemption

Connors v. Boston, 430 Mass. 31 (local ordinance invalid if inconsistent with State law under Home Rule)
Bloom v. Worcester, 363 Mass. 136 (analysis focuses on whether Legislature intended to preclude local action)
Wendell v. Attorney Gen., 394 Mass. 518 (inference of preemption where Legislature intended to deny municipal regulation)
Easthampton Sav. Bank v. Springfield, 470 Mass. 284 (sharp conflict standard for invalidating local laws)
Grace v. Brookline, 379 Mass. 43 (purpose of legislation cannot be achieved if local by‑law allowed)
Twomey v. Middleborough, 468 Mass. 260 (standard of de novo review of judge's conclusions)
Doe v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 460 Mass. 342 (state residency restriction on rest‑home residency required individualized hearing)
Commonwealth v. Fay, 467 Mass. 574 (civil commitment standard for sexually dangerous persons)
Commonwealth v. Cole, 468 Mass. 294 (discussion of CPSL and separation of powers issues)
Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 467 Mass. 598 (due process limits on retroactive community notification)