## Facts

- Individuals who wished to bathe nude at Brush Hollow, a remote beach within Cape Cod National Seashore, challenged a National Park Service regulation banning public nudity by persons over ten years of age.
- Brush Hollow had long been used for nude bathing without prior suppression by local or state authorities or the Park Service after the Seashore’s creation.
- In the early 1970s, attendance increased sharply, with hundreds on typical days and a peak exceeding a thousand in a single day, driven in part by publicity.
- Nearby residents and property owners complained of congestion and related harms and pressed the Park Service and an advisory commission to respond.
- The Seashore was managed under a conservation mandate; Brush Hollow was designated a “non-managed” area emphasizing preservation.
- After evaluating options, the Park Service adopted a uniform prohibition on public nudity, effectively ending nude use at Brush Hollow.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the regulation violated constitutional privacy and liberty interests.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs satisfied the then-applicable $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on the interests asserted.
2. Whether a constitutionally protected privacy or liberty right includes public nude bathing in a national seashore, and whether a total nudity ban is unconstitutional (raised but not reached on the merits).

## Decision

- The court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to show that the value of the right asserted met the $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.
- The court treated the asserted interest—recreational nude bathing at a particular beach—as personal and not shown to have sufficient pecuniary value.
- The court rejected attempts to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold through indirect economic effects or by aggregating claims.
- Because jurisdiction was lacking, the court did not decide the constitutional merits; the regulation remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts must confirm subject-matter jurisdiction before addressing constitutional or other merits questions, even if the trial court proceeded on the assumption of jurisdiction.
- When an amount-in-controversy requirement applies, the plaintiff bears the burden to show the claimed right or relief has the requisite monetary value.
- Personal or recreational interests, without a demonstrated pecuniary valuation meeting the jurisdictional threshold, do not establish the amount in controversy.
- Separate plaintiffs’ claims generally may not be aggregated to satisfy an amount-in-controversy requirement absent a legally cognizable common and undivided interest.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit dismissed the challenge to the National Park Service’s anti-nudity regulation for failure to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, leaving the regulation intact and declining to resolve whether public nude bathing is constitutionally protected.


Williams v. Kleppe, 539 F.2d 803 (1st Cir. 1976)