Blog

Oct 14, 2024

North Carolina Anti-Riot Act Survives ACLU's Constitutional Suit

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina’s challenge to the state’s Anti-Riot Act failed Wednesday when a federal district court ruled the group didn’t state viable claims that the law is

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina’s challenge to the state’s Anti-Riot Act failed Wednesday when a federal district court ruled the group didn’t state viable claims that the law is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina also denied the ACLU’s motion to certify its proposed class of plaintiffs composed of all elected district attorneys in North Carolina and to temporarily enjoin the state’s Attorney General Joshua Stein from enforcing the disputed law, saying the request was now moot.

North Carolina’s Anti-Riot Act prohibits anyone from willfully engaging in a riot, which it defined in part as a “public disturbance involving an assemblage of three or more persons which by disorderly and violent conduct” or threat thereof results in injury to persons or property, or the imminent threat of such injury.

The ACLU argued the law, which was enacted in 1969 during the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, was designed to “crack down on protests and demonstrations.” The group alleged that the state’s definition of “riot” was too vague for individuals to predict what conduct might lead to arrest, and was overbroad in that it outlawed constitutionally protected speech.

But Biggs said the ACLU didn’t sufficiently allege the law’s definitions were void for vagueness under the due process provisions of either the state or federal constitution. The law’s “limited” construction of the definition of riot prevents arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and would eliminate fears of nonviolent protesters being arrested, Biggs wrote.

The ACLU also failed to sufficiently allege how the law was overly broad, Biggs wrote. The law contains clear language concerning which protected activities are not subject to penalty, the judge said.

Biggs rejected Stein’s defense that the defendants were immune from the claims under the Eleventh Amendment, ruling constitutional claims against state officials aren’t precluded by the US Constitution.

Biggs rejected the ACLU’s contention it had organizational standing because it’s had to divert resources in response to the law, saying the diversions have been solely voluntary. TBut the ACLU established representational standing on behalf of its members, established an injury-in-fact, and demonstrated traceability and redressability, the opinion said. But these still far short of the bar needed to move forward with the suit, Biggs said.

In-house counsel represents the ACLU of North Carolina. The North Carolina Department of Justice represents Stein.

The case is Am. C.L. Union of N.C. v. Stein, M.D.N.C., 1:23-cv-00302, 6/26/24.

To contact the reporter on this story: Quinn Wilson in Washington at [email protected]

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Brian Flood at [email protected]

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.