July 5th, 2005, Precedential Status: We note that the complaint includes a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging that the plaintiffs' right to privacy was violated by the statute. We turn, briefly, to White Tail. White Tail Park also serves as home for a small number of permanent residents. For AANR-East to establish this element, it must adduce facts demonstrating that it suffered "an invasion of a legally protected interest," id. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. To satisfy the constitutional standing requirement, a plaintiff must provide evidence to support the conclusion that: (1) the plaintiff suffered an injury in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there [is] a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it [is] likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. White Tail Park v. Stroube, 4th Cir. 57. They contend that the new requirements of the Virginia statute imposed an unconstitutional burden on their right to guide the upbringing of their children and their children's right to privacy and expressive association. In June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long juvenile nudist camp at a licensed nudist campground ("White Tail Park") operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. In turn, based on its conclusion that the claims asserted by the individual plaintiffs were moot and no longer presented a justiciable controversy, the court held that the organizational plaintiffs lacked associational standing to bring claims on behalf of the individual plaintiffs.3 Finally, the district court opined that "even if [White Tail] and AANR-East have a first amendment right to disseminate their message of social nudism to children in a structured summer camp program, the minimal requirement that a parent, grandparent or legal guardian be at the park does not prevent" White Tail or AANR-East from exercising this right. Moreover, these claims were not mooted when AANR-East surrendered its permit for the 2004 summer camp. 2005) This opinion cites 20 opinions. Va.Code 35.1-18 (emphasis added). I. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. November 1 - April 30: Open from 8 am to 4 pm daily. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). white tail park v stroube white tail park v stroube. We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir.1991). Contact us. A summer nudist camp for children ages 11 through 17 was conducted at White Tail Park in 2003. Like the doctrine of mootness, the standing limitation is derived from the cases or controversies requirement of Article III. Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 320 (4th Cir. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 1992). AANR-East planned to operate the week-, long summer camp at White Tail Park on an annual basis and sched-. 103. ; J.B., on behalf of themselves and their minor child, C.B. 5. Roche also serves as president of White Tail, In view of this ruling, the district court concluded that the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the anonymous plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' motion for leave to use pseudonyms, and plaintiffs' motion for a protective order were moot. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court dismissing White Tail's claims for lack of standing. U.S. WHITE TAIL PARK, INCORPORATED; American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Incorporated; K.H. Virginia's General Assembly found out about the camp and passed the legislation requiring a parent, grandparent or legal guardian to accompany each participant, scuttling plans for the 2004 camp at the Ivor park. A total of 32 campers attended the 2003 summer camp at White Tail Park. We turn, briefly, to White Tail. White Tail Resort :: A Family Nudist Resort, Ivor: See 22 traveler reviews, 3 candid photos, and great deals for White Tail Resort :: A Family Nudist Resort, ranked #1 of 1 specialty lodging in Ivor and rated 4.5 of 5 at Tripadvisor. AANR-East is one of several regional organizations affiliated with the American Association for Nude Recreation, a national social nudism organization. Modeled after juvenile nudist summer camps operated annually in Arizona and Florida by other regional divisions of AANR, the 2003 AANR-East summer camp offered two programs: a "Youth Camp" for children 11 to 15 years old, and a "Leadership Academy" for children 15 to 18 years old. The camp agenda included traditional activities such as arts and crafts, campfire sing-alongs, swimming, and sports. Roche enclosed a press release issued by AANR-East indicating that, in light of the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, AANR-East was forced to cancel camp because the new Virginia statutory requirements "place[d] an undue burden on too many parents who had planned to send their children" to the camp. 1. Coatis, Raccoons, and Ringtails. As the application process was proceeding, AANR-East, White Tail, and three sets of parents, suing anonymously on behalf of themselves and their children, filed this action against Robert B. Stroube, Commissioner of the VDH. The third couple was able to arrange their schedule so that they could accompany their children, but sought to enjoin the application of the amended statute because they believed the camp experience would be more valuable if [the children] were able to spend the week away from us. J.A. Pye v. United States, 269 F.3d 459, 467 (4th Cir. Ultimately, however, AANR-East was able to operate its youth nudist camp by relocating to a neighboring state. J.A. weaning a toddler cold turkey; abc polish newspaper . White Tank Mountain Regional Park 20304 W. White Tank Mountain Road Waddell, AZ 85355 (602) 506-2930 ext. The gravamen of the standing issue for AANR-East is whether it has sufficiently demonstrated that it ha[s] suffered an injury in fact. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. This conclusion, however, fails to recognize that AANR-East and White Tail brought certain claims, as discussed below, in their own right and not derivative of or on behalf of their members. White Tail. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. VDH issued a summer camp permit to AANR-East, licensing it to operate a summer camp at White Tail Park from July 23, 2004 to July 31, 2004. At the hearing, the Commissioner argued that the case had become moot because AANR-East surrendered its permit after failing to secure a preliminary injunction and then successfully moved the camp to another state. Having concluded that the claims of AANR-East and White Tail are not moot, we next consider whether these organizations have standing to raise them in federal court. On appeal, White Tail and AANR-East do not claim to have associational standing, given that neither organization is pursuing any claims on behalf of the individual plaintiffs. The American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Inc. ("AANR-East"), White Tail Park, Inc. ("White Tail"), and six individual plaintiffs appeal from the order of the district court dismissing their complaint for lack of standing. The standing requirement must be satisfied by individual and organizational plaintiffs alike. Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General of Virginia, Wil-, liam E. Thro, State Solicitor General, Maureen Riley Matsen, Deputy, State Solicitor General, Courtney M. Malveaux, Associate State. 115. The gravamen of the standing issue for AANR-East is whether it has sufficiently demonstrated that it "ha[s] suffered an `injury in fact.'" The camp is highly supervised and there is no indication that any sexual activity takes place or that children are physically or psychologically harmed in any way. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction together with the complaint. 2d 491 (1969). missing their complaint for lack of standing. AANR-East contends that the statute impairs its ability to disseminate the "values related to social nudism in a structured camp environment." In June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long juvenile nudist camp at a licensed nudist campground ("White Tail Park") operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. 2130.4 Regardless of whether the district court technically addressed this issue, this court is obliged to address any standing issue that arises, even if it was never presented to the district court. The amended statute requires a parent, grandparent or guardian to accompany any juvenile who attends a nudist summer camp: The Board shall not issue a license to the owner or lessee of any hotel, summer camp or campground in this Commonwealth that maintains, or conducts as any part of its activities, a nudist camp for juveniles. As the application process was proceeding, AANR-East, White Tail, and three sets of parents, suing anonymously on behalf of themselves and their children, filed this action against Robert B. Stroube, Commissioner of the VDH. 57. 2197, but on whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring [the] suit. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S.Ct. 114. With respect to an injury-in-fact, "the first and foremost of standing's three elements," Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted), an organization that . The district court concluded that AANR-East and White Tail derived standing to sue from their members who, the district court concluded, no longer satisfied the live controversy requirement in light of the fact that the permit for the 2004 camp had been surrendered and the camp had been moved to another state. but on 'whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring suit' " (alteration in original) (quoting Raines v. 3. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. In fact, it would be difficult to think of a more appropriate plaintiff than AANR-East, which is surely one of the few organizations in Virginia, if not the only one, affected by the amendments to section 35.1-18, which were enacted following the opening of AANR-East's first juvenile camp.5. There are substantial common ties between AANR-East and White Tail. A regulation that reduces the size of a speaker's audience can constitute an invasion of a legally protected interest. An organizational plaintiff may establish standing to bring suit on its own behalf when it seeks redress for an injury suffered by the organization itself. We turn first to the question of mootness. III, 2, cl. J.A. The case is White Tail Park v. Robert B. Stroube. Although the First Amendment challenge to section 35.1-18 mounted by AANR-East may ultimately prove unsuccessfulwe express no opinion on the merits hereAANR-East is an appropriate party to raise this challenge. Pye v. United States, 269 F.3d 459, 467 (4th Cir.2001). 1995) (en banc) (" [R]estrictions that impose an incidental burden on speech" will be upheld if they are "narrowly drawn to serve a substantial governmental interest and allow for ample alternative avenues of communication."). ; see also White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459(4th Cir. Amenities: campground, camping, clothing free, lodging, southampton county, virginia, and white tail resort Address: 39033 Whitetail Dr Ivor Virginia 23866 United States Dates of Operation: All Year Phone: 757-859-6123 Email: office@whitetailresort.org Website Twitter Facebook Get Directions No Records Found Sorry, no records were found. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. These rulings are not at issue on appeal. AANR-East contends that the statute encroached on its First Amendment right by reducing the size of the audience for its message of social nudism and will continue to do so as long as it is enforced. The anonymous plaintiffs are parents who intended to send their children to camp at White Tail Park during the last week in July 2004. Only eleven campers would have been able to attend in light of the new restrictions. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. In turn, based on its conclusion that the claims asserted by the individual plaintiffs were moot and no longer presented a justiciable controversy, the court held that the organizational plaintiffs lacked associational standing to bring claims on behalf of the individual plaintiffs.3 Finally, the district court opined that "even if [White Tail] and AANR-East have a first amendment right to disseminate their message of social nudism to children in a structured summer camp program, the minimal requirement that a parent, grandparent or legal guardian be at the park does not prevent" White Tail or AANR-East from exercising this right. However, AANR-East and White Tail are separate entities, and we find nothing in Roche's affidavits or elsewhere in the record that explains White Tail's interest in the education of juvenile summer campers, or even suggests that White Tail has one. J.A. For AANR-East to establish this element, it must adduce facts demonstrating that it suffered "an invasion of a legally protected interest," id. J.A. When at rest, it often wags its banded black and white tail that give the zebra-tailed lizard its name. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Nearby Restaurants. 1995) ("An analysis of a plaintiff's standing focuses not on the claim itself, but on the party bringing the challenge; whether a plaintiff's complaint could survive on its merits is irrelevant to the standing inquiry.").