NAACP v. City of Palo Alto
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Case No. 5:20-cv-07251-EDJ (2020)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
As part of its park system, the City of Palo Alto (city) (defendant) owned and operated Foothills Park, a 1,400-acre park with hiking trails, campgrounds, and meeting spaces overlooking the ocean. An ordinance in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) restricted park access to city residents, city employees, and their guests. Violation of the ordinance was a misdemeanor carrying a penalty of up to six months’ imprisonment, a $1,000 fine, or both. The ordinance was adopted in 1969, at which time there was a well-documented pattern of racial discrimination in the city. Local government policies, restrictive covenants, lending limitations, and realtor conduct combined to prevent non-White persons from acquiring property in the city. Nearly 50 years after the PAMC provision was adopted, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) (plaintiff) sued the city in federal district court, seeking both a declaration that the ordinance was unconstitutional and an injunction preventing its ongoing enforcement. The NAACP argued that when the city ordinance was viewed in the context in which it was adopted, the ordinance was intended to restrict park access to White persons, making the ordinance unconstitutionally discriminatory.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davila, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.