On What Ground Does An Individual Have Standing to Challenge An Ordinance
In Oakwood v. Gummer (1974), 38 Ohio St. 2d 164, 311 N.E.2d 517., the defendant had been arrested for, and found guilty of, violating an Oakwood ordinance that prohibited participating in a parade for which no permit had been obtained.
On appeal, the defendant alleged that the ordinance was unconstitutional because the licensing and permit requirement constituted a prior restraint.
Oakwood argued that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the ordinance because he had never applied for a permit.
The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the defendant had standing to challenge the ordinance. " 'In the area of freedom of expression it is well established that one has standing to challenge a statute on the ground that it delegates overly broad licensing discretion to an administrative office, whether or not his conduct could be proscribed by a properly drawn statute, and whether or not he applied for a license'." 29 Id. at 168