Opinion ID: 203074
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standing to Challenge the 30-Day Advance Application Requirement in the Parade Ordinance

Text: The City argues that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the provision in the parade ordinance, § 13-5(a), requiring applicants to apply for a permit no less than 30 days prior to an intended parade, march or other use of public ways within the City. The City does not challenge plaintiffs' standing to mount constitutional claims as to any other provisions within the parade ordinance. The City notes that plaintiffs never demonstrated any intent or need to apply for their parade permits fewer than thirty days before the marches for which the permits were being sought. Sullivan made a timely application for his permit, which ultimately he received. Dansinger never completed his application for a parade permit, but was timely in his initial application, so that it does not appear the 30-day requirement was, for him, a stumbling block. But, notwithstanding their apparent ability to comply, we believe the plaintiffs have standing to challenge, along with other provisions of the parade ordinance, the constitutionality of the thirty-day advance application provision. While it is true they never applied later than the thirty days before the sought-for permit, a late application is not necessary if injury can otherwise be surmised. Osediacz, 414 F.3d at 143. Sullivan indicated such injury in his deposition testimony that in late March 2004, he was deterred from applying for a permit for an intended April 10, 2004 street march because it was too late for him to comply with the thirty-day advance notice requirement. [5] Sullivan's testimony was, we believe, enough to permit plaintiffs to pursue a facial challenge to the thirty-day requirement as part of their overall attack on various aspects of the parade ordinance. Because there was a showing of injury sufficient for standing to attack the thirty-day provision, we need also to determine the ripeness of this claim. Ripeness calls for an evaluation of the fitness of the claim and the hardship to plaintiffs of withholding immediate judicial consideration. Rhode Island Ass'n of Realtors, Inc. v. Whitehouse, 199 F.3d 26, 33 (1st Cir.1999). We have said that when free speech is at issue, concerns over chilling effect call for a relaxation of ripeness requirements. El Dia, Inc. v. Hernandez Colon, 963 F.2d 488, 496 (1st Cir.1992) (stating that a facial challenge of this sort, implicating First Amendment values, customarily works a relaxation of the ripeness criteria). The rationale for this relaxation is said to stem from a fear of irretrievable loss. Id. Thus, when First Amendment claims are presented, [r]easonable predictability of enforcement or threats of enforcement, without more, have sometimes been enough to ripen a claim. New Mexicans for Bill Richardson v. Gonzales, 64 F.3d 1495, 1499 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting Martin Tractor Co. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 627 F.2d 375, 380 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 954, 101 S.Ct. 360, 66 L.Ed.2d 218 (1980)). The standing and ripeness concerns are intertwined, with the core issue being the reasonable fear of enforcement. Whitehouse, 199 F.3d at 33. Here, Sullivan testified to believing that the requirement to apply for a parade permit thirty days before the event blocked his eligibility to receive a permit for a short-notice street march he wished to hold on April 10, 2004 and that, as a result, he did not apply for a permit and did not hold the march. His concern as to this provision is closely linked to other concerns of and alleged injuries to plaintiffs stemming from the parade ordinance's effect upon them. We believe plaintiffs' challenge to the thirty-day provision is fit to be decided now in this litigation, and that it would be a hardship to plaintiffs were we not to do so. The challenge to the thirty-day requirement was and is ripe for present review.