## Facts

- The Town of Narragansett operated a public beach and related bathhouse facilities under a Rhode Island enabling act authorizing fees and “reasonable rules and regulations” for facility use.
- The Town constructed and maintained beach structures, including pavilions with seasonal lockers and cabanas available for lease.
- Demand for lockers and cabanas exceeded supply; by the early 1980s, the Town faced oversubscription for these limited amenities.
- In 1981, the Town adopted a policy prioritizing residents and local taxpayers in the assignment of lockers and cabanas.
- In 1988, a major pavilion was condemned due to asbestos, leaving substantially fewer lockers/cabanas available at the remaining pavilion.
- The Town adopted an ordinance and policy that effectively prioritized (and in practice limited) leasing of the remaining lockers and cabanas to residents and certain favored local categories, sharply reducing availability to nonresidents.
- Plaintiffs, nonresidents not qualifying for the preference, brought a § 1983 action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging (1) the preference violated equal protection and (2) the Town exceeded authority under the enabling act requiring operation for the “public.”

## Issues

1. Whether prioritizing residents and local taxpayers for leases of a limited number of municipal beach lockers and cabanas violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the resident-priority ordinance exceeds or conflicts with the Town’s authority under the state enabling act authorizing operation of public beach facilities subject to reasonable regulation.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for the Town and the defendant officials in their official capacities.
- The court held the ordinance and policy did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- The court held the ordinance was a reasonable regulation within the scope of the enabling act and did not contravene state law.
- The court denied declaratory and injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Where a classification neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, equal protection is evaluated under rational basis review.
- Recreational access to capacity-limited municipal amenities (such as seasonal locker/cabana leases) is not a fundamental right, and nonresidents are not a suspect class.
- Under rational basis review, a resident-preference allocation of scarce municipal recreational resources is constitutional if rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, including equitable distribution to town inhabitants and recognition of residents’ tax support.
- A municipal “public” beach authorization may guarantee general access to the beach while permitting differentiated rules for ancillary, capacity-limited facilities, so long as the rules are reasonable and within delegated authority.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Narragansett’s resident-priority system for leasing a limited number of beach lockers and cabanas, finding it rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives and a reasonable exercise of authority under the enabling legislation, particularly because general beach access remained open to nonresidents.


Zaroogian v. Town of Narragansett, 701 F. Supp. 302 (D.R.I. 1988)