URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett
631 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Narragansett adopted an unruly gatherings ordinance allowing police to post a bright orange sticker on affected properties after intervention for a nuisance.
- Posting lasts Sept 1–May 31 or Jun 1–Aug 31, depending on the season; landlords/tenants are jointly liable for subsequent violations at the posted premises.
- The ordinance lists violations constituting unlawful conduct and provides defenses for landlords/tenants who took steps to exclude offenders.
- The district court upheld the ordinance against preemption and constitutional challenges; plaintiffs appeal to the First Circuit.
- Plaintiffs include URI Student Senate and students/landlords affected by postings, challenging procedural due process, vagueness, overbreadth, and preemption.
- The First Circuit affirms, concluding the ordinance does not facially violate state law or the U.S. Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption by the L&T Act | L&T Act conflicts with eviction duties; preempts ordinance. | No direct conflict; eviction mechanics are compatible with posting defense. | L&T Act does not preempt the Ordinance. |
| Procedural due process | Posting without hearing deprives landlords/tenants of notice and hearing; stigma plus harms rights. | No cognizable liberty or property interest; stigma alone is insufficient. | No procedural due process violation on facial challenge. |
| Overbreadth | Ordinance chills association and social gatherings; broad targeting. | Ordinance targets conduct with a predicate unlawful element, not protected association. | Ordinance does not reach substantial protected conduct; overbreadth failure. |
| Vagueness | Terms like substantial disturbance, public nuisance are undefined. | Context, examples, and purpose provide sufficient guidance to enforcement. | Ordinance is sufficiently definite; not unconstitutionally vague. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (due process requires a liberty or property interest to implicate notice rights)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (stigmatization alone inadequate for due process; needs tangible interest)
- Pendleton v. City of Haverhill, 156 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 1998) (stigma plus standard requires tangible interest and causal link)
- Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (overbreadth reviewed to protect substantial protected conduct)
- Morales v. Town of Westerly, 527 U.S. 54 (1999) (overbreadth doctrine applied with caution; not all facial challenges succeed)
- Whiting v. Town of Westerly, 942 F.2d 18 (1st Cir. 1991) (framework for facial vagueness challenges and substantial connections)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (void-for-vagueness requires reasonably definite prohibitions)
- IMS Health Inc. v. Ayotte, 550 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008) (context matters; reasonable breadth may preserve validity)
- Barr v. Galvin, 626 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2010) (example of applying vagueness and enforcement context)