Appellate judges uphold Maryland beach town's topless ban
A federal appeals court has affirmed a Maryland beach town’s right to ban women from topless sunbathing
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A federal appeals court on Wednesday affirmed a Maryland beach town's right to ban women from topless sunbathing.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled unanimously that Ocean City's law, which allows men to be topless but not women, is constitutional.
Ocean City passed its law in 2017 after one of the plaintiffs in the case, Chelsea Eline, contacted Ocean City police and asserted a right to go topless.
The panel's ruling notes that courts across the country have upheld laws banning women from topless sunbathing on public beaches. While the law imposes a restriction on women that is not imposed on men, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. wrote that Ocean City's elected leaders are within their rights to enact laws that protect public sensibilities.
“The judicial legacy of justifying laws on the basis of the perceived moral sensibilities of the public is far from spotless. Some government action that we now rightly view as unconstitutional, if not immoral, has been justified on that basis. Even so, in this situation, protecting public sensibilities serves an important basis for government action,” Quattlebaum wrote.
Town leaders said they received calls and letters overwhelmingly supporting the ban.
In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote that U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires upholding the ban. But he suggested the court should reconsider the issue.
“At first glance, Ocean City’s ordinance seems innocuous enough. ... But we must take care not to let our analysis be confined by the limits of our social lens,” Gregory wrote. “Suppose the ordinance defined nudity to include public exposure of a woman’s hair, neck, shoulders, or ankles. Would that law not run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause?”
A town spokesman and an attorney for the plaintiffs did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday afternoon.