In a nutshell, the basis is:
- Restricts right of travel, which is considered a fundamental right that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Courts of both the state and the country.
- Restricts free speech: people are being barred from exercising political speech (or speech of any kind) inside the park.
- Restricts freedom of assembly: Peaceful gatherings in the park to discuss these things are barred.
Basically, the beef is with the ordinances that fine and enforcement that harasses people who will enter the park anyway.
EDIT: There is another interesting basis: One of the plaintiffs is a black store owner (store located in Palo Alto), who pays taxes to the city (that presumably contribute to the upkeep of the park), but still can't enter the park, because she lives in Menlo Park, a neighboring town. So what is the basis for excluding her from the park? It seems to me that 'residents pay taxes but others do not' is not a valid argument for barring access to nonresidents, if you consider the plaintiff's complaint.
Right, what limiting principle makes government restricted areas like Area 51 or even Federal/State/Local legislature floors not violate the “fundamental right to travel” and “speech of any kind”, that also renders resident-restricted public parks a violation of those same rights?
Also, do the merits of the case change if the plaintiff was a white store owner? Why is their race relevant?
There are several plaintiffs of many races, including past residents of Palo Alto who have moved away. But one of the arguments being made in the complaint is that minorities are specifically affected. The NAACP is also either a party or helping minority plaintiffs file.
Palo Alto is a neighbor of East Palo Alto, which is on the (less desirable) bay shore. There have been racist covenants and exclusionary policies applied towards colored people in the past in Palo Alto, resulting in Palo Alto becoming majority white and East Palo Alto becoming majority colored. All of this is known fact, and lends credence to the complaint.
Personally, I think the case has merit even without the race aspect. But the race aspect certainly bolsters plaintiffs' arguments.
The race aspect changes which part of the Constitution the ACLU thinks is being violated: namely the Fourteenth Amendment (with the disparate impact philosophy).
If that’s what they win on, then it isn’t somehow the end of residency-restricted public parks writ large, it’s probably the end of residency restricted public parks near EPA.
In a nutshell, the basis is: - Restricts right of travel, which is considered a fundamental right that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Courts of both the state and the country. - Restricts free speech: people are being barred from exercising political speech (or speech of any kind) inside the park. - Restricts freedom of assembly: Peaceful gatherings in the park to discuss these things are barred.
Basically, the beef is with the ordinances that fine and enforcement that harasses people who will enter the park anyway.
EDIT: There is another interesting basis: One of the plaintiffs is a black store owner (store located in Palo Alto), who pays taxes to the city (that presumably contribute to the upkeep of the park), but still can't enter the park, because she lives in Menlo Park, a neighboring town. So what is the basis for excluding her from the park? It seems to me that 'residents pay taxes but others do not' is not a valid argument for barring access to nonresidents, if you consider the plaintiff's complaint.