Supreme Court of the United States · 1897 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawFourteenth AmendmentState police powerUse of public propertypublic propertyBoston Commonpermit requirementmunicipal regulation
Facts
The case involved a Boston ordinance, enacted pursuant to legislative authority, regulating use of Boston Common and requiring permission from the mayor for the use at issue. The plaintiff in error argued that he had a right to use the common for preaching free from legislative or municipal control. The record contained no evidence showing any special ownership-based or particular right in him to use the common apart from the general public enjoyment allowed by law. The Massachusetts court treated the common as absolutely subject to legislative control, with authority delegated to the city.
Issue
Whether, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Massachusetts and the city of Boston could regulate or condition a person's use of Boston Common by ordinance and permit requirement, where the person had no particular right to use the common beyond the general public use allowed by state law.
Rule
When a person has no particular proprietary or personal right to use public property beyond the general use permitted by law, the state may absolutely control, limit, or forbid such use, may delegate that authority to a municipality, and may condition use on permission from a designated official. The Fourteenth Amendment does not create a personal right to use public property in defiance of valid state law or police regulations.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
The legislature of Ohio authorizes the city of Cleveland to regulate all organized gatherings in Lakefront Green, a public park owned for public use. A city ordinance requires a permit from the parks director before any rally may occur there. Nolan Price, who has no lease, easement, or other special entitlement to the park, holds a rally without a permit and argues the Fourteenth Amendment gives him a personal right to use the park anyway.
How should a court rule on Nolan's Fourteenth Amendment claim?
Explanation. The majority rule is that where the claimant shows no particular proprietary or personal right to use the public property beyond the general public enjoyment allowed by law, the state may absolutely control, limit, or forbid such use. Because the greater power to exclude includes the lesser power to condition use on permission, a permit requirement does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the claimant wants to use the property contrary to valid state law.