A federal judge has ruled that a previously unhoused man has standing to sue New Hampshire’s Attorney General over the state’s anti-loitering law, clearing the way for his case to move forward.
Robert Clark, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in September 2025.
Clark said he faced repeated threats of prosecution from Concord police during his years of homelessness, as officers enforced the state’s loitering statute against him.
The law states: “A person commits a violation if he knowingly appears at a place, or at a time, under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”
The Attorney General argued that Clark lacked standing because his past run-ins with police didn’t involve constitutionally protected conduct and being homeless alone wasn’t enough to justify fear of future prosecution.
“Clark’s allegations provide ample reason to believe that, while homeless, he would continue to encounter police in circumstances that would trigger application,” Judge Paul Barbadoro said in his order on Friday.
The lawsuit states that the loitering statute is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by denying due process and allowing the government to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, and that it disproportionately targets the homeless population.
“Police shouldn’t have the power to arbitrarily harass and arrest people, but New Hampshire’s loitering law allows them to do just that,” said Gilles Bissonnette, ACLU’s legal director and Clark’s attorney, in a statement. “As we have seen, this law is routinely used against unhoused people in New Hampshire. We are thankful that this case can continue challenging this vague, unconstitutional law.”
In their court filings, state prosecutors argued that the New Hampshire Supreme Court should have the opportunity to interpret the loitering statute before a federal judge decides if the law is unconstitutional.
“A federal court should not be required to rely on guesswork or assumptions as to the meaning of a state statute when being asked to facially invalidate it,” state attorneys wrote.
At an August hearing, Bissonnette told the court that Clark has found housing in Franklin, where he’s now lived for at least seven months.
Sam Gonyea, a state attorney, said in court Clark’s new housing status raises questions about whether the case can still be tried in court.
Barbadoro wrote that the mootness question, which hasn’t yet been formally briefed, will require further proceedings to resolve.
Meanwhile, the ACLU is pushing to broaden the case’s reach, seeking to have it certified as a class action that would extend beyond Clark’s individual circumstances. Barbadoro has not yet ruled on that request.
