## Facts

- Palo Alto owns and operates Foothills Park, a large nature park of roughly 1,400 acres.
- In 1969, the city adopted a municipal ordinance restricting park access to city residents, city employees, and their guests.
- The ordinance imposed criminal penalties for violations, including misdemeanor prosecution with potential jail time and/or fines.
- The NAACP of San Jose/Silicon Valley and individual plaintiffs challenged the ordinance, alleging it functioned as a mechanism of exclusion given the city’s history of racial discrimination in housing and public access.
- Plaintiffs alleged the policy disproportionately excluded people of color because nonresidents were more likely to be people of color due to historic and ongoing barriers to living in Palo Alto.
- Plaintiffs asserted the ordinance infringed constitutional rights relating to equal protection, movement/travel, and speech and assembly in a major public recreational space.
- The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned to a district judge; the matter did not result in a published merits opinion.
- The dispute ended through settlement and city legislative action, with the city repealing the residents-only restriction and opening the park to nonresidents subject to neutral regulations.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipal residents-only restriction on access to a large public park violates equal protection principles when maintained against a background of alleged racial exclusion and claimed disparate racial effects.
2. Whether excluding nonresidents from a major public park unconstitutionally burdens freedom of movement and travel under federal and state constitutional law.
3. Whether barring nonresidents from entering a public park used for recreation and gatherings violates rights of speech and assembly under the First Amendment and state analogs.
4. Whether imposing criminal penalties for nonresident entry into a public park violates due process protections, given the asserted lack of sufficient justification and the alleged discriminatory context.

## Decision

- The case concluded without a published judicial decision resolving the merits of the constitutional claims.
- The dispute was resolved by settlement approved through city action.
- Following the settlement, the city rescinded the residents-only ordinance and opened the park to the general public, subject to nonresidency-based rules (e.g., capacity limits and fees).

## Legal Principles

- A facially neutral classification (such as residency) may be challenged under equal protection theories when plaintiffs allege discriminatory purpose and/or disparate effects tied to historical exclusion.
- Restrictions on access to public property can implicate First Amendment interests when the property is used for expressive or associational activity, depending on the forum analysis and the nature of the restriction.
- Broad exclusions from public facilities may implicate federal and state doctrines protecting freedom of movement and travel.
- Criminal enforcement mechanisms can heighten constitutional scrutiny when used to deter access to public spaces and when plaintiffs allege inadequate justification or impermissible motives.
- Settlement and legislative repeal can end constitutional litigation without creating precedential holdings, while still producing binding policy change for the parties.

## Conclusion

The lawsuit challenging Palo Alto’s residents-only access rule for Foothills Park ended in settlement and repeal of the ordinance, opening the park to nonresidents; the public record reflects no published merits ruling on the equal-protection, movement/travel, or speech-and-assembly claims.


NAACP of San Jose/Silicon Valley v. City of Palo Alto, No. 5:20-cv-07251-EJD (N.D. Cal. 2020)