Sandra Baird and Jared Carter, 136 A.3d 223

Background

Burlington adopted a Church Street Marketplace District "trespass" ordinance allowing police to issue a written notice of trespass after ticketing a person for one of four offenses (disorderly conduct, unlawful mischief, open alcohol, possession of a regulated drug), and to exclude that person from the entire Marketplace District for escalating durations.
The Marketplace District is a quasi-public, pedestrian-heavy commercial area in downtown Burlington patrolled by Burlington Police; the ordinance arose from perceived public-order problems, including issues involving homeless persons.
Appellants Sandra Baird and Jared Carter are Burlington residents and frequent Church Street; neither received a Marketplace District notice of trespass, though Carter alleges an on-the-scene interaction where an officer waved a blank trespass form at him.
Baird and Carter sued the City seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting First Amendment and ultra vires challenges; the City moved to dismiss for lack of standing and subject-matter jurisdiction.
The trial court held a preliminary evidentiary hearing, found appellants lacked a concrete injury (no trespass orders issued), and dismissed for lack of standing; the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to assert their own First Amendment injury (access/expression)	Baird: ordinance restricts her ability to reach audiences on Church Street (public forum); McCullen supports pre-enforcement challenge.	City: appellants have not been targeted, cited, or excluded; no concrete access deprivation occurred.	Held: No standing — neither appellant suffered actual injury; McCullen inapplicable absent concrete exclusion.
Credible-threat/pre-enforcement standing for Carter	Carter: on-scene conduct (bouncer requested "trespass," officer waved blank form) constituted a credible threat of enforcement and chilling.	City: the interaction was not a Marketplace District trespass threat; no ticket for an underlying offense was issued.	Held: No standing — trial court’s factual finding that Carter was not threatened under the ordinance is upheld.
Facial overbreadth challenge under First Amendment	Appellants: ordinance is overbroad and chills others’ speech, so they can bring a facial challenge.	City: overbreadth requires the challenger first to satisfy Article III injury-in-fact.	Held: No standing — overbreadth doctrine does not excuse lack of Article III injury; appellants cannot bring facial challenge.
Derivative taxpayer standing	Appellants: as taxpayers, they may challenge municipal action.	City: taxpayer status alone insufficient; must show direct loss or waste of municipal assets.	Held: No standing — appellants showed neither direct pecuniary loss nor improper waste of funds.

Key Cases Cited

McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (public‑forum access restrictions can support First Amendment pre-enforcement challenges when plaintiffs show concrete burden)
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat. Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (pre-enforcement challenges require realistic danger of direct injury)
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) (chilling‑effect claims require specific present or threatened injury)
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (third‑party standing permissible in narrow circumstances where enforcement would impair third parties’ ability to sue)
Members of City Council of L.A. v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) (overbreadth doctrine applies to protect others’ First Amendment rights but requires Article III injury by challenger)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (facial overbreadth doctrine and standing context)
Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940) (speech/protest protection relevant to overbreadth analysis)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (taxpayer standing requires concrete injury)
N.H. Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.) (pre-enforcement standing requires a credible threat of enforcement)
Hedges v. Obama, 724 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2013) (overbreadth cannot circumvent Article III injury requirement)