The Law

A controversy began when Estiatorio Fili, Inc. (Estiatorio) applied for a BV liquor license for its property at 225 Waterman Street in Providence, Rhode Island. Under Rhode Island law (G.L. 1956 § 3‑7‑19(a)), neighboring property owners within 200 feet could object to the issuance of such a license—a process known as a "remonstrance." Myles Standish Associates, along with other nearby property owners, exercised this right, effectively blocking the license.

Faced with this obstacle, Estiatorio lobbied the General Assembly for relief. In response, lawmakers enacted a special provision—codified at G.L. 1956 § 3‑7‑19(d)(63)—that empowered the Providence Board of Licenses to exempt 225 Waterman Street from the remonstrance process. This effectively cleared the way for Estiatorio's license.

Myles Standish challenged the constitutionality of the special act, arguing that Article 13, Section 4 of the Rhode Island Constitution (the Home Rule Amendment) requires local voter approval for laws that apply only to a particular city or town. The trial court sided with the city and Estiatorio, reasoning that liquor licensing is a matter of statewide concern and thus within the General Assembly's authority.

On appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the special act, which singled out Providence and a specific property, required local voter approval to be valid.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Melissa A. Long drew on prior cases, notably McCarthy v. Johnson (1990), which invalidated special legislation benefiting a single party in a single city without local approval. The Court emphasized that even when the General Assembly acts in areas of traditional state concern, such as licensing, it cannot bypass constitutional limits designed to protect local autonomy.

Justice Robinson, in a concurring opinion, underscored that the case was less about the general power to license businesses and more about the specific location of a liquor‑serving establishment—a matter of local, not statewide, concern. He argued that allowing the legislature to override local opposition in this way would undermine the very purpose of home rule.

The Court concluded that the special act was unconstitutional because it was enacted without the required approval of Providence voters. The Court emphasized that the Home Rule Amendment provides two paths for state legislation affecting cities and towns:

1. General Laws: The General Assembly can pass laws that apply equally to all cities and towns without local approval.
2. Special Acts: If a law applies only to a particular city or town, it becomes effective only if approved by a majority of that city's or town's voters.

The Court found that “ [b]ecause the General Assembly enacted § 3‑7‑19(d)(63)—a law related to the affairs and government of the City of Providence—in the absence of local voter approval, we hold that the special act is void under article 13, section 4 of the Rhode Island Constitution.

[W]e vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and remand the matter for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff”.

The decision reaffirms several key principles:

• Local Voter Approval Is Essential: When the General Assembly enacts laws that affect only one city or town, local voters must have the final say.
• Limits on Legislative Power: The state legislature's authority, while broad, is not unlimited. Constitutional safeguards like the Home Rule Amendment are real constraints.
• Protection of Local Rights: The right of remonstrance—allowing neighbors to object to liquor licenses—cannot be swept aside by ad hoc legislation targeting a single property.

The ruling clarifies that while the General Assembly retains broad authority over licensing as a matter of statewide concern, it cannot use that authority to pass special acts that benefit a single property or party in a home rule city without local approval.

(Myles Standish Associates, LP, et al. v. The City of Providence by and through the City of Providence Board of Licenses et al. (Rhode Island Supreme Court, Docket No: 25‑223))

Decided: July 2026
Published: July 2026

Feature Articles

If you have an opinion on the retailing or retail real estate industries, take this opportunity to share your thoughts. Articles should run between 400 and 800 words. Topics can, be general in nature, consumer observation or specific to retail concepts or practices.

Articles will be posted for at least one week and will then be placed in the Editorial Archives. All articles submitted will be read and considered but we cannot guarantee publication. Each published article will carry the submitters byline (if desired) and is a free service to our community.

Article ideas and suggestions are also always welcomed. Contact info@retailtenants.com