BRISTOL — Arguments in the University of Rhode Island Student Senate’s legal fight to outlaw the Town of Narragansett’s controversial orange-sticker policy will unfold at the state’s only law school later this month.

Roger Williams University School of Law will be the venue Nov. 17 for U.S. District Judge William E. Smith to consider the constitutionality of the town’s sticker policy, which is intended to clamp down on partying in rental houses in the seaside community.

“It will be especially interesting because the case involves ‘town/gown’ relations,” David A. Logan, dean of the law school, said in an e-mail statement.

In 2005, the Narragansett Town Council enacted an ordinance that declared a public nuisance any gathering of five or more people that substantially disturbs “the quiet enjoyment” of a neighborhood through unlawful conduct, such as excessive noise, public drunkenness and disturbing the peace.

The police can then place a 10-by-14-inch orange sticker on the front door of any offending house. Those living there face a financial penalty if they remove the sticker before the end of the school year. The property owners, too, are subject to fines, ramping up pressure to make tenants behave.

The Narragansett police in 2007 declared a Southwest Road house in which two URI students lived a public nuisance and placed an orange sticker on the door. The students argue the sticker led to their eviction and the suspension of one from playing in two collegiate hockey games.

Three more students landed before the university’s disciplinary board the following spring after being charged with violating the ordinance. Two landlords also complained they could not rent their houses because of the stickers.

The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Student Senate, renters and landlords alleging that the ordinance violates the Constitutional right to due process. The policy is vaguely worded, they say, and gives the police unfettered discretion to post the stickers without offering alleged offenders a chance to challenge the allegations.

The town countered that the students and landlords have not been deprived of any property or liberties that merit due-process protection. The U.S. Supreme Court, the town’s lawyers say, long settled that reputation and stigma are not sufficient to invoke due-process protections. They argue some vagueness is necessary to address all of the ordinance’s objectives without creating “an encyclopedic and unwieldy law.”

Marc DeSisto will argue for the town and H. Jefferson Melish for the ACLU. Both will answer students’ questions after the arguments.

It is the second time a U.S. District Court judge has held a hearing at the law school. Retired Chief U.S. District Judge Ernest C. Torres conducted a bench trial there in 2004. A 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has also heard cases there in the past.

Smith said he picked the case because he thought law students would find it pertinent, given that many are recent college graduates.

“To try to bring this kind of practical experience to the students is really important,” said Smith, who teaches a class on federal litigation at the school.

The public is invited to observe the arguments, which will take place at 5 p.m. at the law school’s appellate courtroom.

kmulvane@projo.com