Leydon v. Town of Greenwich
257 Conn. 318, 777 A.2d 552, 2001 Conn. LEXIS 321 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that restricts access to a traditional public forum, such as a public park, to residents of the municipality is an unconstitutional violation of the rights to freedom of speech and association under both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution.
Facts:
- The town of Greenwich (town) owns Greenwich Point Park, a 147-acre facility that includes a beachfront, ponds, a marina, open fields, and picnic areas.
- The only land access to the park is via an easement the town holds over a private road owned by the Lucas Point Association, Inc. (association), a private group of adjacent landowners.
- In 1944, when the town was planning to purchase the property, the association passed a resolution stating it would not oppose the purchase on the condition that the town limit use of the park to Greenwich residents.
- Following its purchase of the property in 1945, the town adopted this residents-only policy, which it later codified into a formal ordinance in 1977.
- On August 15, 1994, Brenden P. Leydon, a resident of the neighboring city of Stamford, attempted to enter Greenwich Point Park.
- Leydon was refused admission by a town employee at the main gate because he was not a town resident and did not possess a beach pass, which the ordinance makes available only to residents.
Procedural Posture:
- Brenden P. Leydon sued the town of Greenwich in a state trial court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Lucas Point Association, Inc. successfully moved to intervene as a defendant.
- The trial court rejected Leydon's claims and rendered judgment for the defendants.
- Leydon, as appellant, appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
- The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the ordinance violated a state common-law public trust doctrine, and remanded with direction to enter judgment for Leydon.
- The town of Greenwich and the Lucas Point Association, Inc., as appellants, petitioned the Connecticut Supreme Court for certification to appeal, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance that restricts access to a public park to town residents and their guests violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the free speech and assembly provisions of the Connecticut Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Palmer, J.
Yes, a municipal ordinance that restricts access to a public park based on residency is unconstitutional. The ordinance violates the freedom of expression and association guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions. Under federal law, Greenwich Point is a traditional public forum, where restrictions on access are subject to the highest scrutiny. The town's exclusion of non-residents is not a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction, nor is it narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The ordinance is therefore unconstitutional both as-applied to the plaintiff and facially overbroad because it prohibits a substantial amount of constitutionally protected expressive activity by non-residents. Furthermore, under the more speech-protective 'compatibility test' of the Connecticut Constitution, the ordinance fails because the plaintiff’s intended expressive activities are entirely compatible with the park's normal use. The 1945 agreement between the town and the association is declared unenforceable as against public policy, but no injunction is issued against the private association.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that municipal parks are traditional public forums where First Amendment rights are paramount, preventing towns from creating exclusionary zones based on residency. The case establishes that a government's interest in limiting park use to its own taxpayers does not override the fundamental rights of speech and assembly that attach to such public property. By invalidating the ordinance on both federal and state constitutional grounds, the court provides a robust precedent against the 'balkanization' of public forums, ensuring that public spaces remain open for broad civic and social interaction regardless of municipal boundaries. This impacts how municipalities can manage public resources and reinforces the idea that parks are held in trust for public expression, not just local recreation.
