OCEAN COUNTY, N.J. – A group of longtime Seaside Heights motel owners is asking a New Jersey appellate court to strike down a borough ordinance that bans hotel and motel rentals to anyone under 21 during the spring “prom season,” arguing that the law is unconstitutional and forces them to discriminate against guests.
The plaintiffs — business owners who have operated motels in the popular Jersey Shore town for more than 30 years — filed suit in January 2024 after Seaside Heights adopted Ordinance 2023-24, which restricts who may rent and occupy motel rooms based on age.
Under the ordinance, from April 15 to June 30, no person under 21 may rent a room or stay in one unless accompanied by an immediate family member or guardian aged 21 or older. From July 1 to April 14, the same restrictions apply to guests under 18. Violations carry fines up to $1,000 per day, 90 days in jail, or 90 days of community service.
Borough officials said the law was narrowly tailored to curb “heightened disturbances” that occur during prom season — a period the mayor himself described as lasting “two to three weeks before schools are let out for summer.” Motel owners argue the 11-week restriction goes far beyond that stated purpose.
The plaintiffs claim the ordinance violates the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), and the New Jersey Constitution, asserting that it:
• Infringes on fundamental rights of privacy and association;
• Is unconstitutionally vague; and
• Forces them to discriminate on the basis of age, in violation of the LAD.
They sought a temporary restraining order in March 2024, warning that compliance would require them to refuse rooms to lawful adult customers under 21 — violating civil rights protections — while noncompliance could expose them to criminal penalties and destroy their businesses.
Superior Court Judge Francis R. Hodgson Jr. denied the injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm. When the motel owners’ attorney asked whether the court had considered alleged violations of fundamental rights, Judge Hodgson replied, “the short answer is no.”
Days earlier, Seaside Heights had moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that:
- The suit was filed too late under Rule 4:69-6(a), which requires challenges to ordinances within 45 days of passage;
- The ordinance does not violate the LAD, the Civil Rights Act, or constitutional due process or equal protection.
The motel owners opposed dismissal and urged the court to treat the matter as a declaratory judgment action so that the constitutionality of the ordinance could be reviewed.
The case now on appeal will test whether Seaside Heights’ seasonal age restrictions — enacted to deter underage partying — unlawfully infringe on civil rights and the ability of local motel operators to serve adult guests.
