In a significant ruling, a Washington County Superior Court judge sided with beachfront property owners in a dispute over Rhode Island’s new shoreline access law. The decisions, issued on Friday, July 12, by Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter, deemed the 2023 law unconstitutional, marking a victory for property owners in South Kingstown and Westerly who argued that the law represented an unlawful taking of their land.
The law, which set the public access line at 10 feet landward from the high tide line, has faced immediate pushback from property owners. Taft-Carter’s rulings, heavily based on a 1982 Supreme Court case known as Ibbison, suggested the law provided a vague and inconsistent boundary compared to the “mean high tide line” established in Ibbison.
“The Act reduced the Plaintiff’s ‘bundle of rights’ inherent in the ownership of property by expanding the preexisting boundary line to ten feet landward of the recognizable high tide line and confiscated the Plaintiff’s property resulting in an unconstitutional taking,” Taft-Carter wrote.
Despite this ruling, the case is far from over. Sean Lyness, assistant professor of law at New England Law Boston, expects an appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. “This case was always likely to address issues that the Rhode Island Supreme Court would need to weigh in on,” Lyness noted.
The Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General had sought to dismiss the cases without trial, a motion Taft-Carter denied. Brian Hodge, spokesperson for the AG’s office, expressed disappointment but remained committed to defending shoreline access. “The Attorney General will continue to rigorously defend Rhode Islanders’ access to the shoreline and the litigation team is currently evaluating all options for moving forward,” Hodge said.
The 2023 law was an attempt to settle a long-standing debate over public shoreline access, but property owners argued it violated constitutional protections for private property rights. The law’s defenders, including the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, argued it merely clarified existing rights enshrined in the state’s 1986 constitutional convention.
Pacific Legal Foundation, representing property owner David Welch and his company Stilts LLC, celebrated the judge’s decision. “Our clients are gratified that the court agreed with what they have said from the start—the beach access law violates their rights,” Senior Attorney J. David Breemer stated.
Gerald Petros, representing Westerly property owners David and Linda Roth, praised the decision as “comprehensive and compelling.”
However, the future remains uncertain as the legal battle is expected to continue in the higher courts. Lyness emphasized that the Rhode Island Supreme Court could take a fresh look at the legal questions without deferring to prior rulings.
“For your average Rhode Islander, this decision doesn’t really change anything,” Lyness said, noting that residents can still access the shoreline within the 10-foot boundary from the wrack line.
Individual disputes over shoreline access have decreased in recent years, according to Topher Hamblett, executive director of Save the Bay, a proponent of the new law. Hamblett remains optimistic despite the setback. “We always knew it was not going to be easy,” he said.
The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council did not immediately respond to inquiries for comment. Both Breemer and Petros declined to speculate on an appeal, focusing instead on the immediate impact of the ruling.
“We are happy that maybe some of the misinformation out there about where the public beach really has been in Rhode Island will get corrected,” Breemer said.