1 Prior to oral argument, we granted J&B’s motion to

substitute itself in place of the former appellant, JML Club

Management, Inc., which initially brought this suit. For the sake

of clarity, we refer to the appellant as J&B throughout the

opinion, even where JML took the actions in question. 

Revised September 9, 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 96-60865

____________

J & B ENTERTAINMENT, INC,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

August 21, 1998

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:

The City of Jackson (“the City” or “Jackson”) enacted an

ordinance banning public nudity, with certain exceptions (“the

Ordinance”). J & B Entertainment, Inc. (“J&B”),1 the operator of

a club featuring live female nude dancing, brought suit challenging
2 The text of the Ordinance is set out in Appendix A.

-2-

the constitutionality of the Ordinance and seeking declaratory and

injunctive relief. J&B filed a motion for summary judgment, which

the district court denied, instead granting summary judgment in

favor of the City. J&B appealed and, on the skeletal record now

before us, we vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment

in favor of the City on factual grounds and remand with

instructions. We affirm the district court’s denial of J&B’s

summary judgment motion as a matter of law. 

I

In February 1995, J&B opened Legends Cabaret, a club featuring

live female nude dancing. Jackson enacted the Ordinance the

following month. The Ordinance prohibits persons physically present

in public places from knowingly or intentionally: (1) engaging in

sexual intercourse; (2) appearing in a state of nudity; or (3)

fondling the genitals of himself, herself, or another person.2

“Nudity” is defined as “the showing of the human genitals, anus, or

the female nipple.” Persons “engaged in expressing a matter of

serious literary, artistic, scientific or political value,” are

excepted from the Ordinance’s reach (“the exception”). Supervisors,

managers, owners, and employers of a person who appears in a state

of nudity may be guilty of a misdemeanor. Preambulatory clauses to

the Ordinance provide that the City enacted the Ordinance because

of its interests in protecting order and morality and in combating
3 The district court’s opinion suggests that, although the City did not

file a summary judgment motion, it may have filed a response to J&B’s summary

judgment motion. The district court docket sheet does not list, and the record

on appeal does not contain, this response. If it exists, we have not been

apprised of its contents. Because there is no record of the filing of the City’s

response, we will assume that the City did not respond to J&B’s summary judgment

motion.

4 The district court quoted our opinion in Supreme Beef Processors,

Inc. v. Yaquinto, 864 F.2d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 1989), for the proposition that

“when ‘one party moves for summary judgment the district court, in an appropriate

case, may grant summary judgment against the movant, even though the opposite

party has not actually filed a motion for summary judgment.’” (quoting Landry v.

G.B.A., 762 F.2d 462, 464 (5th Cir. 1985)). J&B has not challenged this

conclusion, and we need not comment upon it further. See Exxon Corp. v. St.

Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir. 1997).

-3-

secondary effects associated with public nudity. The record before

us, however, does not indicate whether the City considered any

studies on secondary effects prior to enacting the Ordinance.

After J&B brought an action challenging the constitutionality

of the Ordinance, the district court directed both parties to

submit motions for summary judgment. Although J&B submitted a

motion for summary judgment, the City did not.3 Although no

evidence in the record specified what specific secondary effects

may have motivated the City to enact the Ordinance, the district

court then issued an order denying J&B’s summary judgment motion

and granting summary judgment in favor of the City.4 As applied to

J&B, the court found the Ordinance constitutional under the Supreme

Court’s decision in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560,

111 S. Ct. 2456, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1991), and rejected J&B’s as

applied and facial vagueness and overbreadth arguments. The

district court also rejected J&B’s challenges to the Ordinance
-4-

under state law. J&B’s timely appeal followed. 

II

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, taking the

facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant below. See New

York Life Ins. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 336, 338 (5th

Cir. 1996). District court determinations of state law are also

reviewed de novo. See Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S.

225, 239, 111 S. Ct. 1217, 1221, 113 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1991). Summary

judgment is appropriate where the record discloses “that there is

no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).

III

We turn our attention first to the challenges that J&B brings

against the Ordinance on overbreadth and vagueness grounds, both as

applied and facially. “The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines are

related yet distinct.” American Booksellers v. Webb, 919 F.2d

1493, 1505 (11th Cir. 1990). The vagueness doctrine protects

individuals from laws lacking sufficient clarity of purpose or

precision in drafting. See Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422

U.S. 205, 217-18, 95 S. Ct. 2268, 2276-77, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1975).

“Overbroad legislation need not be vague, indeed it may be too

clear; its constitutional infirmity is that it sweeps protected

activity within its proscription.” M.S. News Co. v. Casado, 721

F.2d 1281, 1287 (10th Cir. 1983). 
-5-

A

J&B posits that the Ordinance is facially overbroad because it

infringes upon protected First Amendment conduct. In the district

court, J&B conceded that the City removed much, though not all, of

the possible overbreadth through the exception’s exemption of

persons “engaged in expressing a matter of serious literary,

artistic, scientific or political value.” 

Persons to whom a statute may be constitutionally applied

normally lack standing to argue that a statute is unconstitutional

if applied to persons or situations not before the court. See

Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2915, 37

L. Ed. 2d 830 (1973). Standing requirements in the First Amendment

context, however, are relaxed “because of a judicial prediction or

assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause others not

before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech

or expression.” Id. at 612, 93 S. Ct. at 2916; see also Board of

Airport Comm’rs v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 574, 107 S.

Ct. 2568, 2572, 96 L. Ed. 2d 500 (1987). Standing to bring a

facial overbreadth claim, however, is extremely limited:

[T]he plain import of our cases is, at the very least,

that facial overbreadth adjudication is an exception to

our traditional rules of practice and that its function,

a limited one at the outset, attenuates as the otherwise

unprotected behavior that it forbids the State to

sanction moves from “pure speech” toward conduct and that

conduct))even if expressive))falls within the scope of

otherwise valid criminal laws that reflect legitimate

state interests in maintaining comprehensive controls

over harmful, constitutionally unprotected conduct . . .
5 We express no opinion as to whether nude infants or public breast

feeding may be protected by other constitutional or statutory provisions.

-6-

where conduct and not merely speech is involved, we

believe that the overbreadth of a statute must not only

be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to

the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.

Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615, 93 S. Ct. at 2917-18.

After carefully considering the arguments that J&B advances,

we find that the Ordinance’s alleged overbreadth, when compared to

its plainly legitimate sweep, is neither real nor substantial. J&B

hypothesizes that the Ordinance may be overbroad because it

infringes upon many forms of expression protected by the First

Amendment: “the New Stage Theatre in Jackson perform[ing] a

production of Hair,” “nude infant babies in public,” “a woman

breast feed[ing] in the park,” “a nude political debate in the

streets of Jackson,” and “John Grisham read[ing] one of his books

in the nude.” Nude infants and women breast feeding in a park are

not protected by the First Amendment because they are not engaged

in expressing any idea.5 Cf. Barnes, 501 U.S. at 571, 111 S. Ct.

at 2463 (explaining that the First Amendment does not protect nude

sunbathers); City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 25, 109 S.

Ct. 1591, 1595, 104 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1989) (“It is possible to find

some kernel of expression in almost every activity a person

undertakes))for example, walking down the street or meeting one’s

friends at a shopping mall))but such a kernel is not sufficient to

bring the activity within the protection of the First Amendment.”);
-7-

Hang On, Inc. v. City of Arlington, 65 F.3d 1248, 1253 (5th Cir.

1995)(rejecting overbreadth argument because topless bar patrons do

not have a protected First Amendment right to touch nude dancers).

If John Grisham reads one of his novels in the nude or the New

Stage Theatre stages a production of “Hair,” courts can evaluate

whether these activities fall within the scope of the exception.

See Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615-616, 93 S. Ct. at 2918 (“[W]hatever

overbreadth may exist should be cured through case-by-case analysis

of the fact situations to which its sanctions, assertedly, may not

be applied.”); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 25, 93 S. Ct.

2607, 2615, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973) (“[T]he First Amendment values

applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment are

adequately protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to

conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when

necessary.”). Therefore, although hypothetical examples in which

the Ordinance may be overbroad can be imagined, these examples, in

comparison to its legitimate sweep, are not substantial. See

Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 615, 93 S. Ct. at 2918.

Other considerations strengthen our conclusion that the

Ordinance is not substantially overbroad. The Supreme Court has

rejected a facial overbreadth challenge to an Ohio statute

criminalizing the possession of child pornography containing an

exception similar to that found in the Ordinance because the

exception in that statute removed any substantial overbreadth. See
6 The Supreme Court has set forth several reasons for the prohibition

of vagueness:

[B]ecause we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and

unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary

intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so

that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by

not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory

enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards

for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic

policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an

ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary

and discriminatory application. Third, but related, where a vague

statute “abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment

freedoms,” it “operates to inhibit the exercise of [those]

freedoms.” Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to “‘steer

far wider of the unlawful zone’ . . . than if the boundaries of the

forbidden areas were clearly marked.”

-8-

Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 112 n.9, 110 S. Ct. 1691, 1698 n.9,

109 L. Ed. 2d 98 (1990). Moreover, “[a]pplication of the

overbreadth doctrine . . . is, manifestly, strong medicine. It has

been employed only by the Court sparingly and only as a last

resort.” Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613, 93 S. Ct. at 2916. Because

the Ordinance is not substantially overbroad, any remaining

ambiguities can be clarified in future cases. See Young v. American

Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 61, 96 S. Ct. 2440, 2448, 49 L.

Ed. 2d 310 (1976); Broadrick, 413 U. S. at 613, 93 S. Ct. at 2916

(“Facial overbreadth has not been invoked when a limiting

construction has been or could be placed on the challenged

statute.”). Accordingly, we reject J&B’s overbreadth challenge.

B

J&B next contends that the Ordinance is void for vagueness,

both as applied and facially. “[A]n enactment is void for vagueness

if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.”6 Grayned v. City of
Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-09, 92 S. Ct. at 2298-2299 (internal citations omitted).

-9-

Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 109, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222

(1972). In determining whether a statute is vague, we view the law

from the standpoint of a person of ordinary intelligence. See id.

1

As applied to J&B, we conclude that the Ordinance and its

exception are not vague. J&B and its employees can clearly

understand that totally nude dancing violates the Ordinance. J&B

has not argued that the terms “nipple,” “anus,” or “genitals” are

vague or that it and its employees cannot understand their meaning.

See Dodger’s Bar & Grill v. Johnson County Bd. of County Comm’rs,

32 F.3d 1436, 1444-45 (10th Cir. 1994) (rejecting argument that

ordinance prohibiting fondling of genitals, acts simulating sexual

intercourse, or the displaying of human genitals, buttocks, anus,

or part of the female breast was vague); Kev, Inc. v. Kitsap

County, 793 F.2d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 1986) (rejecting void-forvagueness argument for statute that prohibited caressing or

fondling of dancers by patrons of nude dancing bar). J&B conceded

below that the entertainment performed by its dancers lacks any

serious literary, artistic, political, scientific or social value.

Cf. Walker v. City of Kansas City, 911 F.2d 80, 87 (8th Cir. 1990)

(rejecting contention that nude dancers have any serious literary,

artistic, political, or scientific value). Thus, we reject J&B’s

as applied vagueness challenge. See Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 608, 93
-10-

S. Ct. at 2914 (“[E]ven if the outermost boundaries of [the

statute] may be imprecise, any such uncertainty has little

relevance here, where appellants’ conduct falls squarely within the

‘hard core’ of the statute’s proscriptions and appellants concede

as much.”).

2

Because the Ordinance as applied to J&B is not vague, J&B may

proceed on its facial vagueness challenge only if the Ordinance’s

effect on legitimate expression is “real and substantial and the

language of the ordinance is not readily subject to a narrowing

construction by the state courts.” Basiardanes v. City of

Galveston, 682 F.2d 1203, 1210 (5th Cir. 1982) (emphasis added).

“Real and substantial” for a facial vagueness test has the same

meaning as for a facial overbreadth challenge. See Young, 427 U.S.

at 60, 96 S. Ct. at 2447.

J&B argues that a person of ordinary intelligence could not

understand the words of the exception))“serious literary, artistic,

scientific or political value”))or whether her conduct fell within

the terms of the exception. Jackson, however, did not pull these

words from thin air. They are drawn from the third prong of the

obscenity test enunciated in Miller, 413 U.S. at 24, 93 S. Ct. at

2615, appear as one prong of the Mississippi statute defining

obscenity, see MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-29-103(1)(b), and are the subject

of a plethora of opinions handed down by state and federal courts
-11-

throughout this nation in the quarter century since Miller was

decided. See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 585 n.2, 111 S. Ct. at 2470 n.2

(Souter, J., concurring); Triplett Grille, Inc. v. City of Akron,

40 F.3d 129, 136 (6th Cir. 1994). Though J&B may argue that these

words are inherently vague, the Supreme Court itself has not done

better, and “[c]ondemned to the use of words, we can never expect

mathematical certainty from our language.” Grayned, 408 U.S. at

110, 92 S. Ct. at 2300. Moreover, the Ordinance contains a

knowledge requirement, further limiting the potential for

individuals to be ensnared inadvertently in its grasp. See Village

of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S.

489, 499, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L. Ed. 2d 362 (1983) (“[A]

scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness, especially

with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his

conduct is proscribed.”). Thus, the terms of the exception do not

contain real and substantial vagueness.

J&B also argues that the Ordinance is facially vague because

it does not specify who should determine whether an activity has

“serious literary, artistic, scientific or political value” or how

they should make that determination. We reject this argument

because, as noted above, these words appear as one prong of the

Miller obscenity test and MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-29-103(1)(b). The

experience gained by private persons, attorneys, police,

prosecutors, and courts in interpreting Miller and § 97-29-
-12-

103(1)(b) may aid them in their interpretation of the Ordinance and

in deciding who should make the necessary determinations. Further

guidance, to the extent any is needed, can be supplied by appellate

courts. See Miller, 413 U.S. at 25, 93 S. Ct. at 2615 (“[T]he

First Amendment values applicable to the States through the

Fourteenth Amendment are adequately protected by the ultimate power

of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of

constitutional claims when necessary.”). 

J&B additionally argues that the Ordinance is void for

vagueness because it “impermissibly delegates basic policy matters

to policemen, judges, and juries.” See Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-

09, 92 S. Ct. at 2299; Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358-60,

103 S. Ct. 1855, 1858-59, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983). We again note

that J&B has not argued that the terms “nipple,” “anus,” or

“genitals” are vague or that a person of reasonable intelligence

cannot understand the meaning of these terms. See Dodger’s Bar &

Grill, 32 F.3d at 1444-45; Kev, 793 F.2d at 1057. In the absence

of any such argument, we find that the Ordinance sets forth a core

of prohibited conduct with sufficient definiteness to guide those

who must interpret it. See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358, 103 S. Ct. at

1858 (finding a law to be void for vagueness because it specified

no core of prohibited conduct and permitted “‘a standardless sweep

allow[ing] policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their

personal predilections’”) (quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566,
-13-

574, 94 S. Ct. 1242, 1247-48, 39 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1974)). 

Finally, J&B argues that the Ordinance is facially vague

because the exception contains only one of the Miller obscenity

test’s three prongs. This argument is reminiscent of the Supreme

Court’s reasoning in Reno v. ACLU, __ U.S. __, 117 S. Ct. 2329,

2345, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997), in which the Court found certain

terms in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to be vague because

the Act defined them by reference only to one of Miller’s three

prongs. The offending terms in the Act were “indecent” and

material that “in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently

offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual

or excretory activities or organs.” Id. at __, 117 S. Ct. at 2324.

In rejecting the government’s argument that these terms were no

more vague than Miller’s definition of obscenity, the Court

described the “lack[ing] of serious literary, artistic, political,

or scientific value” prong as “particularly important” and

“critically limit[ing] the uncertain scope of the obscenity

definition.” Id. at __, 117 S. Ct. at 2345. In contrast to the

Communications Decency Act, the Ordinance includes this

“particularly important” prong as its exception. Moreover, as the

district court correctly noted, nudity and obscenity are not

synonymous. See Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 66,

101 S. Ct. 2176, 2181, 68 L. Ed. 2d 671 (1981); Erznoznik, 422 U.S.

at 213, 95 S. Ct. at 2275. If the City were required to include all
-14-

three prongs of Miller, it would be regulating obscene nudity, and

its ability to regulate nonobscene nudity would be eviscerated.

Because Barnes plainly gives governments the power to regulate

nonobscene nudity, as we discuss below, we reject J&B’s argument.

In conclusion, we reiterate that because the Ordinance is not

vague as applied to J&B, we have reviewed J&B’s facial vagueness

challenge only to determine whether the Ordinance contains real and

substantial vagueness. We express no opinion as to whether less

than substantial vagueness exists in the Ordinance; that is a task

for future courts. See Young, 427 U.S. at 61, 96 S. Ct. at 2448;

Basiardanes, 682 F.2d at 1210.

IV

A

We now turn to the question of whether the Ordinance is

consistent with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

While it is now beyond question that nonobscene nude dancing is

protected by the First Amendment, even if “only marginally so,”

see, e.g., Barnes, 501 U.S. at 565-66, 111 S. Ct. at 2460 (“Nude

dancing of the kind sought to be performed here is expressive

conduct within the outer perimeters of the First Amendment, though

we view it as only marginally so.”); Schad, 452 U.S. at 66, 101 S.

Ct. at 2181, it is also clear that the government can regulate such

activity. “[E]ven though we recognize that the First Amendment

will not tolerate the total suppression of erotic materials that
-15-

have some arguably artistic value, it is manifest that society’s

interest in protecting this type of expression is of a wholly

different, and lesser, magnitude than the interest in untrammeled

political debate.” Young, 427 U.S. at 70, 96 S. Ct. at 2452.

In Barnes, a three-judge plurality of the Supreme Court held

that an enactment banning public nudity, as applied to nude

dancing, can be upheld as a content-neutral time, place, and manner

regulation if it comports with the intermediate scrutiny test

enunciated in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77, 88 S.

Ct. 1673, 1678-79, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672 (1968). See Barnes, 501 U.S. at

567, 111 S. Ct. at 2461. In O’Brien, the Court set out the fourpart test as follows:

[A] government regulation is sufficiently justified [1]

if it is within the constitutional power of the

government; [2] if it furthers an important or

substantial governmental interest; [3] if the

governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of

free expression; and [4] if the incidental restriction on

alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is

essential to the furtherance of that interest. 

O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 376-77, 88 S. Ct. at 1679. Using this test,

the three-judge plurality upheld Indiana’s prohibition on public

nudity, as applied to nude dancing. See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 570,

111 S. Ct. at 2462-63. In a separate concurrence, Justice Souter

agreed with the plurality that the O’Brien test should be used to

determine whether a statute banning public nudity is a valid time,

place, and manner regulation, but differed with regard to O’Brien’s
-16-

second prong))namely, the societal interest necessary to permit

governmental regulation. See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 582, 111 S. Ct.

at 2468-69 (Souter, J., concurring); see also International

Eateries of Am., Inc. v. Broward County, 941 F.2d 1157, 1160 (11th

Cir. 1991) (discussing differences between the plurality opinion

and Justice Souter’s concurrence). While the plurality found

morality to be a sufficient governmental interest to permit

regulation, see Barnes, 501 U.S. at 568-69, 111 S. Ct. at 2461-62,

Justice Souter found that combating secondary effects was

sufficient, but that morality was not. Id. at 582, 111 S. Ct. at

2468-69 (Souter, J., concurring). Justice Scalia concurred in the

judgment, but adopted a different analysis, explaining that “the

challenged regulation must be upheld, not because it survives some

lower level of First Amendment scrutiny, but because, as a general

law regulating conduct and not specifically directed at expression,

it is not subject to First-Amendment scrutiny at all.” Id. at 572,

111 S. Ct. at 2463 (Scalia, J., concurring). 

Because no single opinion in Barnes commanded a majority, as

an initial matter, we must decide which opinion sets forth the

relevant standard under the First Amendment. J&B argues that

precisely because no opinion commanded a majority, we cannot rely

on Barnes, and must instead evaluate the Ordinance under the test

set out in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41,

106 S. Ct. 929, 89 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1986). “When a fragmented Court
-17-

decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys

the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be

viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the

judgments on the narrowest grounds.’” Marks v. United States, 430

U.S. 188, 193, 97 S. Ct. 990, 993, 51 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1977) (quoting

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 n.15, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 2923

n.15, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976)). Courts have generally adopted

Justice Souter’s concurrence as the narrowest opinion in Barnes.

See, e.g., Triplett Grille, 40 F.3d at 134; International Eateries,

941 F.2d at 1160-61 (adopting Justice Souter’s concurrence as the

narrowest opinion because it was the closest to the secondary

effects analysis of Renton). “While ‘there is some awkwardness in

attributing precedential value to an opinion of one Supreme Court

justice to which no other justice adhered, it is the usual practice

when that is the determinative opinion.’” Triplett Grille, 40 F.3d

at 134 (quoting Blum v. Witco Chem. Corp., 888 F.2d 975, 981 (3rd

Cir. 1989)). We agree with the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits that

Justice Souter’s concurrence is the narrowest opinion in Barnes,

and accordingly will follow Justice Souter’s concurrence in

deciding this appeal. 

Before we turn to the merits of J&B’s challenge to the

Ordinance as applied to nude dancing, we note that, because we

review the Ordinance under an intermediate scrutiny standard of

review, the government bears the burden of justifying (i.e., both
-18-

the burden of production and persuasion) the challenged statute.

See Renton, 475 U.S. at 48, 106 S. Ct. at 929; see also Turner

Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 664-65, 114 S. Ct.

2445, 2470, 129 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1994) (reaffirming that under the

intermediate scrutiny standard of review, the government bears the

burden of justifying the challenged enactment); Phillips v. Borough

of Keyport, 107 F.3d 164, 173 (3rd Cir. 1997) (en banc). 

B

1

The first prong of O’Brien requires that the government have

the constitutional power to enact the regulation in question. J&B

contended below that the Ordinance failed this prong because the

City allegedly lacked the power to enact the Ordinance under state

law. The district court found that the City had the constitutional

power to enact this Ordinance under its police powers, and that, in

any event, state law authorized the City to enact the Ordinance.

Although on appeal J&B renews the argument it made below, we find

that the district court correctly concluded that Jackson has the

constitutional power to enact the Ordinance. See Barnes, 501 U.S.

at 583, 111 S. Ct. at 2469 (“[I]t is clear that the prevention of

such evils falls within the constitutional power of the State,

which satisfies the first O’Brien criterion.”). 

2

Our attention is next directed toward O’Brien’s second
-19-

criterion))namely, whether the Ordinance “furthers an important or

substantial governmental interest.” O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 376-77,

88 S. Ct. at 1678-79. The district court concluded that under

Justice Souter’s concurrence in Barnes, secondary effects linked to

adult entertainment are a sufficient governmental interest to

justify a ban on public nudity, as applied to nude dancing.

Relying on dicta from Lakeland Lounge of Jackson, Inc. v. City of

Jackson, 973 F.2d 1255, 1258 n.1 (5th Cir. 1992), and Justice

Souter’s concurrence in Barnes, the court also determined that a

government need not provide any evidence that a desire to combat

secondary effects actually motivated it to enact an ordinance or

that the challenged ordinance may further its interests. J&B

disputes these conclusions, arguing that a government must still

consider evidence of secondary effects, must do so prior to

enacting an ordinance, and must determine how the ordinance may

further its interests. As explained below, we agree with J&B that

the government must produce evidence that the challenged ordinance

may advance its interest in combating adverse secondary effects

attendant to nude dancing. In doing so, however, the government is

not limited to using evidence developed prior to enactment.

a

A local government’s interest in preserving the quality and

character of neighborhoods and urban centers can, if properly set

forth, support restrictions on both public nudity and adult
-20-

entertainment. See Renton, 475 U.S. at 50, 106 S. Ct. at 930

(stating that the government’s “‘interest in attempting to preserve

the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high

respect’”) (quoting Young, 427 U.S. at 71, 96 S. Ct. at 2453). In

setting forth this interest, a local government may place great

weight upon the experiences of, and studies conducted by, other

local governments, as well as opinions of courts from other

jurisdictions. See Renton, 475 U.S. at 51, 106 S. Ct. at 931.

Crucially, in Renton, the Court explained that

[t]he First Amendment does not require a city, before

enacting such an ordinance, to conduct new studies or

produce evidence independent of that already generated by

other cities, so long as whatever evidence the city

relies upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the

problem that the city addresses.

Id. at 51-52; 106 S. Ct. at 931. Thus, Renton teaches us that the

government must produce some evidence of adverse secondary effects

produced by public nudity, as applied to nude dancing, or adult

entertainment in order to justify a challenged enactment using the

secondary effects doctrine. Id. Justice Souter’s concurrence in

Barnes establishes that, in justifying a ban on public nudity, as

applied to nude dancing, the government can meet this burden either

by developing evidence of secondary effects prior to enactment or

by adducing such evidence at trial. See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 582,

111 S. Ct. at 2469 (Souter, J., concurring) (“Our appropriate focus

is not an empirical enquiry into the actual intent of the enacting
7 In addition to Lakeland Lounge, the district court relied on various

state and district court opinions from around the country and the Sixth Circuit’s

opinion in Triplett Grille, 40 F.3d at 135. Although dicta from Triplett Grille

suggests that Barnes may have obviated the government’s need to provide evidence

that secondary effects associated with adult entertainment motivated it to ban

-21-

legislature, but rather the existence or not of a current

governmental interest in the service of which the challenged

application of the statute may be constitutional.”); Phillips, 107

F.3d at 178; International Eateries, 941 F.2d at 1161 (“[I]n order

to uphold a statute regulating nude dancing, it is still necessary

after Barnes that the statute meet the secondary effects test of

Renton.”). Renton also instructs us that a government must present

sufficient evidence to demonstrate “a link between the regulation

and the asserted governmental interest,” under a “reasonable

belief” standard in order to satisfy this prong of O’Brien. See

Renton, 475 U.S. at 51-52, 106 S. Ct. at 931; see also SDJ, Inc. v.

City of Houston, 837 F.2d 1268, 1274 (5th Cir. 1988).

Thus, the district court in this case misinterpreted Justice

Souter’s concurrence in Barnes because, although his concurrence

allows a local government to justify a challenged ordinance based

on evidence developed either prior to enactment or adduced at

trial, it does not eliminate the government’s burden of introducing

sufficient evidence to justify the challenged ordinance. See

Barnes, 501 U.S. at 582, 111 S. Ct. at 2469 (Souter, J.,

concurring); International Eateries, 941 F.2d at 1161. Our opinion

in Lakeland Lounge, 973 F.2d at 1258-59, is not to the contrary.7
public nudity, as applied to nude dancing, the Sixth Circuit proceeded to examine

the evidence in the record to determine whether the government had properly

justified the ordinance, see id. at 135, as we do here. Indeed, the Sixth

Circuit in Triplett Grille struck down the ordinance in question there because

it concluded that the government had failed to introduce sufficient evidence to

justify a complete ban on all nudity, including where the nudity occurred as part

of serious artistic, literary, political or scientific expression. See id. at

136. Thus, Triplett Grille does not support the district court’s conclusion.

-22-

We upheld the challenged ordinance there because the government

adduced sufficient evidence at trial to establish that prior to

enacting the ordinance, it had reviewed sufficient evidence to

develop a reasonable belief that enacting the zoning ordinance

would ameliorate secondary effects associated with adult

entertainment. Id. at 1258-59. As such, Lakeland Lounge is

consonant with our case law upholding ordinances regulating adult

entertainment where the government has introduced sufficient

evidence to justify the ordinance on the basis of preenactment

legislative findings or evidence adduced at trial. See Hang On, 65

F.3d at 1256; MD II Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 28 F.3d

492, 496 (5th Cir. 1994); SDJ, 837 F.2d at 1274 (“[U]nlike our

review under a standard of rationality, we will not hypothesize

such an objective or accept a naked assertion. Rather, we intrude

into the regulatory decision process to the extent that we insist

upon objective evidence of purpose))a study or findings. Insisting

upon findings reduces the risk that a purported effort to regulate

effect is a mask for regulation of content.”). Accordingly, the

district court erred in concluding that when the government

attempts to justify a ban on public nudity as fulfilling a
8 J&B also argues that because the City first chose to adopt a zoning

ordinance, it could not adopt other measures designed to resolve related problems

without first finding that the zoning ordinance was inadequate to ameliorate the

secondary effects previously identified. Acceptance of J&B’s argument would

require Jackson to produce its own studies in order to support this Ordinance or

find a study produced by another government in an almost identical position.

Barnes forecloses this argument:

In light of Renton’s recognition that legislation seeking to combat

the secondary effects of adult entertainment need not await

localized proof of those effects, the State of Indiana could

reasonably conclude that forbidding nude entertainment . . .

furthers its interest in preventing prostitution, sexual assault,

and associated crimes. Given our recognition that “society’s

interest in protecting this type of expression is of a wholly

different, and lesser, magnitude than the interest in untrammeled

political debate,” . . . I do not believe that a State is required

affirmatively to undertake to litigate this issue repeatedly in

every case.

501 U.S. at 584-85, 111 S. Ct. at 2470 (Souter, J. concurring) (internal

citations omitted). 

-23-

substantial government interest based on the secondary effects

doctrine, as applied to nude dancing, it does not need to introduce

any evidence.8 “To insist on less is to reduce the First Amendment

to a charade.” Phillips, 107 F.3d at 178.

b

Although it erroneously concluded that a government does not

need to introduce evidence to justify an ordinance regulating

public nudity challenged on First Amendment grounds, the district

court also found sufficient evidence in the record to determine

that the City enacted the Ordinance based on secondary effects

associated with public nudity, as applied to nude dancing. The

district court based its conclusion upon two pieces of evidence.

First, the court noted that a preambulatory clause to the Ordinance

provides that “the City of Jackson has a legitimate interest in
-24-

combating secondary effects associated with public places where

persons who are physically present appear nude amongst strangers.”

Second, the court noted that the City enacted an adult

entertainment zoning ordinance in 1991 (“1991 zoning ordinance”),

and that the composition of the City Council that enacted the 1991

zoning ordinance was the same as the City Council that enacted the

Ordinance in question here. 

In SDJ, we explained how a government can justify a challenged

ordinance as fulfilling a substantial interest based on the

secondary effects doctrine:

[A] city may establish its “substantial interest” in the

regulation by compiling a record with evidence that it

may be “reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem

that the city addresses.” We do not ask whether the

regulator subjectively believed or was motivated by other

concerns, but whether an objective lawmaker could have so

concluded, supported by an actual basis for the

conclusion. Legitimate purpose may be shown by reasonable

inferences from specific testimony of individuals, local

studies, or the experiences of other cities.

SDJ, 837 F.2d at 1274 (internal citations omitted). As noted above,

the City must demonstrate “a link between the regulation and the

asserted governmental interest,” under a “reasonable belief”

standard. See Renton, 475 U.S. at 51-52, 106 S. Ct. at 931.

Because the First Amendment protects nonobscene nude dancing, see

Barnes, 501 U.S. at 565-66, 111 S. Ct. at 2463, we again note that

on summary judgment and at trial, the government bears the burden

of justifying the challenged enactment by introducing sufficient

evidence. Renton, 475 U.S. at 48, 106 S. Ct. at 929; see also
9 See supra note 3.

-25-

Turner Broadcasting, 512 U.S. at 664-65, 114 S. Ct. at 2470;

Phillips, 107 F.3d at 173.

Our task of reviewing the district court’s finding that

sufficient evidence exists in the record to determine that the City

has met its burden under this prong of O’Brien is complicated by

its conclusion that a government does not need to provide any

evidence to justify a challenged enactment. As a result of this

conclusion, the court determined that the City had satisfied this

prong based on an extremely sparse record. Excluding procedural

motions, the record consists only of several unamended and amended

complaints and answers by J&B and the City, respectively, J&B’s

summary judgment motion, and the order granting summary judgment.

The record contains neither any deposition testimony nor any

affidavit from any City council member or city employee that might

clarify the City’s motives for enacting the Ordinance. The City

also did not file a summary judgment motion with attached exhibits

that might illuminate its motives.9 In fact, other than its

answers to J&B’s complaint, the only nonprocedural written document

in the record submitted by the City, either to this Court or the

district court, is its 15-page appellate brief that is similarly

unenlightening. Finally, the City has not presented the record of

evidentiary hearings, if any, conducted by the district court.

The first piece of evidence that the district court relied
-26-

upon to conclude that the City enacted the Ordinance to combat

secondary effects linked to public nudity is the Ordinance’s

preambulatory clause stating that “the City of Jackson has a

legitimate interest in combating secondary effects associated with

public places where persons who are physically present appear nude

amongst strangers.” In Lakeland Lounge, we explained that the mere

incantation of the words “secondary effects” may not save a statute

“formulated without specific attention to specific secondary

effects.” Lakeland Lounge, 973 F.2d at 1259. No explanation of what

specific secondary effects motivated Jackson to enact the Ordinance

appears in its text, and the City Council failed to make any

specific legislative findings prior to enactment. See id.; see also

Phillips, 107 F.3d at 173 (“There is no articulation by the state

of what it perceives its relevant interests to be and how it thinks

they will be served. This is particularly troublesome in a case,

like this, where the legislative findings speak in terms of

‘serious objectionable operational characteristics,’ ‘deleterious

effects,’ and ‘the deterioration of the community’ without

identifying in any way those ‘characteristics,’ those ‘effects,’ or

that ‘deterioration.’”). Moreover, because the district court

granted summary judgment before the record was fully developed, the

City did not present evidence in court to demonstrate “a current

governmental interest” that might validate the Ordinance. Barnes,

501 U.S. at 582, 111 S. Ct. at 2469 (Souter, J., concurring)
-27-

(upholding ordinance in absence of preenactment evidence where

government presented sufficient evidence at trial to justify the

ordinance); Renton, 475 U.S. at 51-52, 106 S. Ct. at 931 (upholding

ordinance regulating adult entertainment where government justified

ordinance by placing sufficient studies into evidence to establish

that the studies could reasonably be believed to be relevant to the

problems the government faced). Further, no evidence exists to

indicate how the City believed that the Ordinance might further its

interests. See DLS, 107 F.3d at 410 (upholding ordinance

regulating nude dancing where government introduced sufficient

evidence to enable the court to determine that the government had

a reasonable basis for determining that the ordinance might further

its interests). Thus, this preambulatory clause may be one piece

of evidence in support of the Ordinance, if properly explained. On

the skeletal record before us, however, and in the absence of any

evidence suggesting that the City enacted the Ordinance with

“specific attention to specific secondary effects” or any

justification at trial and explanation as to how the Ordinance may

further the City’s interests, this clause is insufficient to

justify the Ordinance.

The second piece of evidence that the district court relied

upon to find that the City enacted the Ordinance to combat

secondary effects linked to public nudity was the City’s experience

in enacting the 1991 zoning ordinance. Prior to enacting the 1991
-28-

zoning ordinance, Jackson’s City Council received information

regarding studies on secondary effects associated with adult

entertainment in other cities. See Lakeland Lounge, 973 F.2d at

1258-59. Other than the inference that Jackson must have had the

same interests because the composition of the City Council that

enacted the Ordinance was the same as the City Council that enacted

the 1991 zoning ordinance, however, the City has offered no

reasoned explanation linking the two ordinances, for how they seek

to further similar interests, or for how it could reasonably

conclude that banning public nudity might further its interests.

Therefore, in light of Barnes, we find this single piece of

evidence to be insufficient to justify the Ordinance as fulfilling

a substantial governmental interest for the following reasons.

Barnes eschews an examination of the motives of legislators and

their knowledge in favor of a determination as to whether the

challenged ordinance may be valid in the service of a current

governmental interest and some evidence that the challenged

enactment may further that interest. See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 582,

111 S. Ct. at 2469 (Souter, J., concurring) (“At least as to the

regulation of expressive conduct, ‘[w]e decline to void [a statute]

essentially on the ground that it is unwise legislation which [the

legislator] had the undoubted power to enact and which could be

reenacted in its exact form if the same or another legislator made

a ‘wiser’ speech about it.’”) (alterations in original) (quoting
-29-

O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 384, 88 S. Ct. at 1683). Thus, the district

court’s focus on the City Council members’ knowledge directs our

attention precisely where it should not be. Moreover, under the

intermediate scrutiny standard of review, the government bears the

burden of providing sufficient evidence to justify a regulation,

not the district court. See Renton, 475 U.S. at 48, 96 S. Ct. at

929; see also Turner Broadcasting, 512 U.S. at 664-65, 114 S. Ct.

at 2470. The district court in this case completely obviated the

City’s burden by attempting to justify the Ordinance for the City

before the City had a chance to do so when it prematurely granted

summary judgment, and we thus have no way of knowing how the City

might justify the Ordinance.

Prudence also suggests that making the entire determination of

whether a challenged ordinance is constitutional hinge upon the

prior experiences of legislators, absent reasoned explanation, is

unwise. While the district court’s conclusion that the prior

experiences of legislators can justify a challenged ordinance

without reasoned explanation linking the earlier enactment to the

challenged ordinance may be easily applied in this case, we may

quickly become bogged down in a morass of line-drawing in future

cases. First, what if some but not all of the legislators have

previously received information on secondary effects. How many are

enough? Half? Two-thirds? How long can pass between the review

of the materials and the challenged ordinance? What if the
10 As the Third Circuit aptly noted:

It may well be that the defendants here, by pointing to

studies from other towns and to other evidence of legislative facts,

will be able to carry their burden of showing that the ordinance is

reasonably designed to address the reasonably foreseeable secondary

effect problems. Nevertheless, our First Amendment jurisprudence

requires that the Borough identify the justifying secondary effects

with some particularity, that they offer some record support for the

existence of those effects and for the Ordinance’s amelioration

thereof, and that the plaintiffs be afforded some opportunity to

-30-

applicable law has changed in the interim? As Justice Souter’s

concurrence in Barnes suggests, there are no easy answers to these

questions. Prudence thus dictates that the past experiences of

legislators, while perhaps relevant in determining whether

sufficient evidence exists to uphold an ordinance, are not

factually sufficient to uphold an ordinance in and of themselves.

Our conclusion is in accord with the Third Circuit’s recent en

banc opinion in Phillips, 107 F.3d at 178. After the Borough

enacted a zoning statute regulating adult entertainment, Phillips,

who desired to open an adult video and bookstore, brought suit

challenging the constitutionality of the zoning statute on grounds

that the Borough had failed to make preenactment legislative

findings. The district court partially granted the Borough’s

motion to dismiss, and later granted summary judgment in favor of

the Borough. Id. at 173. The Third Circuit vacated the orders and

remanded the case because the district court had granted the

motions to dismiss and for summary judgment before the Borough had

articulated what governmental interests it sought to advance and

how the ordinance might further those interests.10 Id.
offer evidence in support of the allegations of their complaint. To

insist on less is to reduce the First Amendment to a charade in this

area. 

Phillips, 107 F.3d at 175. 

11 We have vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on

factual grounds. Because the Ordinance will not be a reasonable time, place and

manner regulation if it fails even one prong of O’Brien, J&B has advanced various

other arguments as to why it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law

that, if successful, would obviate the need for a remand, and the district court

granted summary judgment to the City in the same order in which it denied J&B’s

motion for summary judgment, we will proceed to review J&B’s remaining arguments

as to why it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Phillips,

107 F.3d at 171 (first vacating the district court’s order because the district

court granted summary judgment before the City justified the challenged ordinance

and then going on to consider Phillip’s arguments as to why he was entitled to

summary judgment as a matter of law).

-31-

In conclusion, as a result of the district court’s premature

grant of summary judgment, the record now before us is simply too

bare to support its conclusion that the City enacted the Ordinance

based on a desire to combat secondary effects linked to public

nudity, as applied to nude dancing. We are not in a position to

review this conclusion or determine whether the City could have a

reasonable belief that the Ordinance might further its interests.

Because the burden of proof under the intermediate scrutiny

standard of review is on the City and insufficient evidence exists

to indicate that the City has met its burden under this prong on

the record now before us, we vacate the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of the City.11

3

O’Brien’s third criterion requires that “the governmental

interest be unrelated to the suppression of free expression.”

O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 376-77, 88 S. Ct. at 1678-79. Both Renton and
-32-

the plurality and Justice Souter’s concurrence in Barnes held that

a regulation satisfies this criterion and is content neutral for

purposes of applying the O’Brien test if it can be “‘justified

without reference to the content of the regulated speech.’”

Barnes, 501 U.S. at 586, 111 S. Ct. at 2471 (emphasis in original)

(quoting Renton, 475 U.S. at 48, 106 S. Ct. 929). The majority in

Renton and Justice Souter in Barnes found that secondary effects

associated with adult theaters and public nudity, as applied to

nude dancing, respectively, can justify their restriction or ban.

See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 585-86, 111 S. Ct. at 2470-71; Renton, 475

U.S. at 47-48, 106 S. Ct. at 929. “Because the State’s interest in

banning nude dancing results from a simple correlation of such

dancing with other evils, rather than from a relationship between

the other evils and the expressive component of the dancing, the

interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression.”

Barnes, 501 U.S. at 586, 111 S. Ct. at 2471 (Souter, J.,

concurring). If Barnes applies, therefore, the City has satisfied

the third prong of O’Brien.

Perhaps sensing that it has a tough row to hoe if Barnes

applies, J&B contends that Barnes-O’Brien analytical framework is

inapplicable because the framework only applies to content neutral

laws, and the Ordinance is not content neutral for two reasons.

J&B first argues that the Ordinance is not content neutral because

it is underinclusive. J&B contends that the Indiana statute in
12 J&B also contends that the Ordinance is not content neutral because

it neither specifies who will determine whether someone is “engaged in expressing

a matter of serious literary, artistic, scientific or political value” nor

provides any guidelines on how to make that determination. We construe this as

an argument that the Ordinance is vague, which we addressed in Section III.B. 

-33-

question in Barnes banned all public nudity, while the Ordinance’s

exception exempts persons “engaged in expressing a matter of

serious literary, artistic, scientific or political value” from its

reach.12 As such, J&B avers that whether the Ordinance covers a

particular instance of nudity can be determined only by examining

the content of the nudity, which it claims is precisely what the

First Amendment prohibits and triggers the strict scrutiny standard

set out in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L.

Ed. 2d 342 (1989). J&B alternatively contends that the Ordinance

is not content neutral because the City enacted the Ordinance for

an improper purpose))i.e., out of dislike for the erotic message

conveyed by nude dancing. The district court rejected these

arguments because it found the City’s predominate purpose in

enacting the Ordinance to be ameliorating secondary effects

associated with public nudity, rather than disagreeing with any

erotic message conveyed by nude dancing.

Several reasons compel us to reject J&B’s underinclusiveness

argument. First, although the Indiana statute in question in Barnes

facially banned all nudity, the Indiana Supreme Court appears to

have previously supplied a limiting construction in cases where

“some nudity [occurs] as a part of some larger form of expression
-34-

meriting protection, when the communication of ideas is involved.”

Indiana v. Baysinger, 397 N.E. 2d 580, 587 (Ind. 1979).

Notwithstanding this limiting construction (quite similar to the

exception in Jackson’s Ordinance), a plurality of the U.S. Supreme

Court and Justice Souter found the statute to be content neutral.

See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 564 n.1, 111 S. Ct. at 2459 (discussing

Baysinger). Moreover, concurring in Barnes, Justice Souter

questioned whether an across-the-board ban on public nudity could

survive an overbreadth challenge if it did not contain an exception

for serious artistic productions such as “Hair” or “Equus.” See

Barnes, 501 U.S. at 585 n.2, 111 S. Ct. at 2470 n.2 (“It is

difficult to see, for example, how the enforcement of Indiana’s

statute against nudity in a production of ‘Hair’ or ‘Equus’

somewhere other than an ‘adult’ theater would further the State’s

interest in avoiding harmful secondary effects.”); see also

Triplett Grille, 40 F.3d at 136 (striking down an ordinance banning

all public nudity as overbroad because it did not contain an

exception for serious artistic entertainment). Acceptance of J&B’s

argument would place Jackson and other governments between Scylla

and Charybdis: if a government attempted to ban all nudity, its

enactment would become susceptible to an overbreadth challenge,

while if it included an exception for some nudity, it would open

itself up to a content neutrality challenge. See Miller v. Civil

City of South Bend, 904 F.2d 1081, 1121 (7th Cir. 1990) (en banc)
-35-

(Easterbrook, J., dissenting) (“A decision saying that a statute

does not apply to protected expression recognizes the supremacy of

the Constitution over state law; to acknowledge a limit the

Constitution imposes on legislation is not to abandon the

generality of the law.”), reversed sub nom. Barnes v. Glen Theatre,

Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 111 S. Ct. 2456, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1991).

Further, Barnes as well as other Supreme Court cases suggest that

where no adverse secondary effects linked to public nudity

exist))such as presumably would not occur at a performance of

“Hair” or “Salome”))the government can except the nudity from its

otherwise general prohibition without destroying the enactment’s

content neutrality. See Barnes, 501 U.S. at 585 n.2, 111 S. Ct. at

2470 n.2; Young, 427 U.S. at 82 n.6, 96 S. Ct. at 2458 n.6

(Stevens, J., concurring) (“[E]ven if this were a case involving a

special governmental response to the content of one type of movie,

it is possible that the result would be supported by a line of

cases recognizing that the government can tailor its reaction to

different types of speech according to the degree to which its

special and overriding interests are implicated.”); see also DLS,

107 F.3d at 411-12 (rejecting similar underinclusiveness argument).

J&B alternatively contends that the Ordinance is not content

neutral because the City enacted the Ordinance for an improper

purpose. Pointing to the timing of the Ordinance’s enactment))just

one month after J&B opened Legends Cabaret))J&B claims that despite
13 Neither the record nor the parties’ briefs indicates whether other

nude dancing clubs have previously operated in Jackson. If they have, this

argument would be frivolous and merit no discussion.

-36-

the Ordinance’s facial ban on all public nudity, the City enacted

the Ordinance as a result of its dislike for the erotic message

conveyed by nude dancing.13 If this argument were true, Jackson

would be targeting an activity “precisely because of its

communicative attributes,” Barnes, 501 S. Ct. at 577, 111 S. Ct. at

2466 (Scalia, J., concurring), thereby rendering the Ordinance

presumptively unconstitutional. See, e.g., United States v.

Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 110 S. Ct. 2404, 110 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1990)

(burning flag); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533,

105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989) (same). 

“Courts, however, normally do not look behind the legislative

findings and policy to attempt to discern the hidden (as

distinguished from the stated) purpose of the legislation.”

Ambassador Books & Video v. City of Little Rock, 20 F.3d 858, 863-

64 (8th Cir. 1994); see also D.G. Restaurant Corp. v. City of

Myrtle Beach, 953 F.2d 140, 146 (4th Cir. 1991) (rejecting argument

that legislators enacted a ban on public nudity because they

disagreed with the message conveyed by nude dancing where ban was

enacted shortly after nude dancing club announced plans to open).

Moreover, although one of the Ordinance’s preambulatory clauses

provides that the City enacted the Ordinance because of its

interest in protecting order and morality, another clause states
14 Quoting the old saw that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” J&B

also argues that the Ordinance is not content neutral because the government is

incapable of distinguishing one form of “art” from another. This argument echoes

Judge Posner’s concurrence in City of South Bend, 904 F.2d at 1089-1104. While

this position may have much to commend it, the Supreme Court unambiguously

refused to adopt it when reversing City of South Bend in Barnes. Accordingly,

we need not comment further upon this argument.

-37-

that the City enacted this regulation in response to secondary

effects associated with public nudity. Finally, J&B does not, and

indeed could not, argue that the Ordinance covers only nude

dancing. Although the Ordinance makes some exceptions, it targets

public nudity. While J&B may argue that the Ordinance places a

greater burden on it than on others, “[a] regulation that serves

purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral,

even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages

but not others.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791, 109 S. Ct. at 2754.

Therefore, we reject J&B’s argument that the City enacted the

Ordinance for an improper reason. 

J&B has failed to demonstrate that the Ordinance is not

content neutral. The Ordinance thus complies with O’Brien’s third

criterion.14 

4

J&B additionally contends that the Ordinance fails O’Brien’s

fourth prong because the City provides no alternative avenues of

communication. The district court held that because Barnes gave

governments the power to ban nude dancing altogether, no

alternative avenues of communication need be provided. 
-38-

The plurality opinion in Barnes upheld the ban on public

nudity under this prong because it found Indiana’s requirements to

be reasonable: “Indiana’s requirement that the dancers wear at

least pasties and G-strings is modest, and the bare minimum

necessary to achieve the State’s purpose.” Barnes, 501 U.S. at

572, 111 S. Ct. at 2463. Justice Souter expressed a similar view:

“Pasties and a G-string moderate the expression to some degree, to

be sure, but only to a degree. Dropping the final stitch is

prohibited, but the limitation is minor when measured against the

dancer’s remaining capacity and opportunity to express the erotic

message.” Id. at 587, 111 S. Ct. at 2471. 

We too find the City’s restrictions to be reasonable.

Jackson’s Ordinance defines “nudity” as “the showing of the human

genitals, anus, or the female nipple.” J&B’s dancers presumably

could avoid violating the Ordinance by wearing pasties and a Gstring that covered their nipples, anuses, and genitalia. Thus,

J&B’s dancers may have ample avenues of communication open to

express their erotic message; they would be prevented only from

“dropping the final stitch.” Barnes, 501 U.S. at 587, 111 S. Ct. at

2471 (Souter, J., concurring). Although not being permitted to

drop that final stitch may decrease the number of patrons who

desire to see the dancing at Legends Cabaret, “[t]he inquiry for

First Amendment purposes is not concerned with economic impact;

rather, it looks only to the effect of this ordinance upon freedom
15 MISSISSIPPI CODE ANN. § 21-17-5 provides that 

[t]he governing authorities of every municipality of this state

shall have the care, management and control of the municipal affairs

. . . In addition to those powers granted by specific provisions of

general law, . . . municipalities shall have the power to adopt any

. . . ordinances with respect to such municipal affairs . . . which

are not inconsistent with the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, the

Mississippi Code of 1972, or any other statute or law of the State

of Mississippi . . . [T]he powers granted to . . . municipalities in

this section are complete without the existence of or reference to

any specific authority granted in any other statute or law of the

State of Mississippi.

16 Prior to 1992, a city could “only exercise such powers as are

delegated by the Legislature . . . [and had] no power except that delegated to

it by the state . . . [and its] powers . . . [were] to be construed most strongly

against an asserted right not clearly given and [could not] be extended by mere

implication.” Hattiesburg Firefighters Local 184 v. City of Hattiesburg, 263 So.

2d 767, 769 (Miss. 1972). Relying on Hattiesburg Firefighters, several cases

struck down ordinances regulating obscenity on grounds that municipalities were

not authorized by state law to regulate obscenity. See Videophile, Inc. v. City

of Hattiesburg, 601 F.Supp. 552, 553-54 (S.D. Miss. 1985); Fernwood Books and

Video, Inc. v. City of Jackson, 601 F.Supp. 1093, 1095-96 (S.D. Miss. 1984). In

1992, Mississippi increased the power of municipalities by amending § 21-17-5 to

read: “in addition to those powers granted by specific provisions of general law,

. . . municipalities shall have the power to adopt any . . . ordinances with

-39-

of expression.” Young, 427 U.S. at 78, 96 S. Ct. at 2456 (Powell,

J., concurring). Accordingly, we conclude that Jackson has

satisfied O’Brien’s fourth criterion.

V

J&B finally contends that the Ordinance is preempted by state

law. Mississippi has a “home rule” statute that grants cities the

power to enact ordinances related to the care, management, and

control of municipal affairs, as long as the ordinance is not

inconsistent with the state constitution or a state statute.15 See

MISS. CODE ANN. § 21-17-5. Section 21-17-5 also provides that the

powers given to municipalities are complete without the existence

of or reference to any specific state statute.16 Id. J&B
respect to such municipal affairs . . . which are not inconsistent with”

Mississippi law. MISS. CODE ANN. § 21-17-5 (Supp. 1997). Thus, Mississippi

statutorily abrogated the holdings of Videophile and Fernwood Books, and contrary

to the arguments of J&B, we will not rely upon those cases.

17 Section 97-29-31 provides: “A person who wilfully and lewdly exposes

his person, or private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where

others are present, or procures another to so expose himself, is guilty of a

misdemeanor and, on conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five

hundred dollars ($500.00) or be imprisoned not exceeding six (6) months, or

both.” 

-40-

identifies several state statutes with which it claims the

Ordinance is inconsistent.

J&B first contends that Mississippi allows all nonlewd public

nudity because MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-29-31 prohibits wilful and lewd

nudity,17 and that the Ordinance is inconsistent with § 97-29-31

because it prohibits nonlewd public nudity. The Mississippi Supreme

Court has explained on several occasions that an ordinance is

“inconsistent” with a state statute only if the two are in direct

conflict, as determined by reference to the facts of the case at

hand. See Maynard v. City of Tupelo, 691 So. 2d 385, 388 (Miss.

1997); City of Jackson v. Lee, 252 So. 2d 897, 898 (Miss. 1971).

Ordinances that supplement or address a different subject matter

than a state statute are not inconsistent with the statute unless

the state has explicitly provided that localities cannot further

regulate a given area. See Lee, 252 So. 2d at 897. Silence on the

part of the state does not give rise to an inference that the state

has prohibited localities from enacting ordinances further

regulating an area. See Maynard, 691 So. 2d at 388. Thus, the

state’s ban of lewd public nudity))and silence on the subject of
18 By its terms, this section is inapplicable for two reasons. First,

Jackson had a population of 196,637 in the 1990 federal census. U.S. DEP’T OF

COMMERCE, COUNTY AND CITY DATA BOOK 770 (1994). Second, the statute grants the power

to regulate public nudity to county boards of supervisors, not to city councils.

-41-

nonlewd public nudity))does not give rise to an inference that the

state has expressed an intent to allow nonlewd public nudity. See

id. This conclusion is strengthened by MISS. CODE ANN. § 19-5-103,

which permits boards of supervisors of counties containing or

adjacent to a city with a population of at least 200,000 to

regulate public displays of nudity. Although this statute is

inapplicable here,18 its existence further suggests that Mississippi

intended to allow additional regulation of public nudity by

localities. See also MISS. CODE ANN. § 21-19-15 (granting police

powers to municipalities but not to boards of supervisors).

Accordingly, we reject J&B’s argument that Mississippi intended to

permit nonlewd public nudity by banning lewd nudity. 

J&B further argues that the Ordinance directly contradicts

§ 97-29-31 because the Ordinance, through the exception, allegedly

allows lewd nudity if the nudity occurs when a person is “engaged

in expressing a matter of serious literary, artistic, scientific or

political value.” Contrary to J&B’s argument, the Ordinance and

§ 97-29-31 may, in fact, overlap. Neither § 97-29-31 nor the two

reported cases applying this section define “lewdly.” See

Pendergrass v. Mississippi, 193 So. 2d 126, 128 (Miss. 1966)

(reversing the conviction of a nude sunbather under this section);

Stark v. Mississippi, 33 So. 175, 175 (Miss. 1903) (overturning
-42-

conviction under this section where indictment omitted the term

“lewdly”). Other public indecency statutes in other states,

however, generally define “lewd” by reference to the Miller

definition of obscenity, the third prong of which is identical to

the Ordinance’s exception. See South Carolina v. Bouye, 484 S.E. 2d

461, 464 (S.C. 1997) (noting that dictionaries define “lewd” and

“obscene” synonymously, and holding that a statute prohibiting lewd

nudity covers only obscenity); Louisiana v. Crater, 388 So. 2d 802,

803 (La. 1980) (finding a state statute prohibiting lewd dancing

void for vagueness because it might reach more than obscene

dancing); City of Seattle v. Johnson, 791 P.2d 266, 269 (Wash. Ct.

App. 1990) (holding city’s lewd conduct ordinance facially

overbroad). Section 97-29-31, to be constitutional, may thus

include an exception in the case of a person “engaged in expressing

a matter of serious literary, artistic, scientific or political

value.” See Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 498-

99, 105 S. Ct. 2794, 2798-99, 86 L. Ed. 2d 394 (1985) (partially

invalidating Washington’s public indecency statute because it

contained an overbroad definition of lewdness); Hill, 482 U.S. at

468-70, 107 S. Ct. at 2513-14. If so, § 97-29-31 and the Ordinance

may overlap, rather than being inconsistent. See, e.g., City of

Hattiesburg v. Region XII Comm’n on Mental Health and Retardation,

654 So. 2d 516, 518 (Miss. 1995) (rejecting state law preemption

argument where state statute and municipality ordinance
19 MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-29-103 provides that

(1) Material or performance is obscene if:

(a) To the average person, applying contemporary community

standards, taken as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interest,

that is, a lustful, erotic, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity,

sex or excretion; and

(b) The material taken as a whole lacks serious literary,

artistic, political or scientific value; and

(c) The material depicts or describes in a patently offensive way,

sexual conduct specifically defined in subparagraphs (i) through (v)

below: . . . 

-43-

overlapped); Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 674 A. 2d 338, 347 (Pa.

Commw. Ct. 1996) (same). 

J&B further contends that the Ordinance is inconsistent with

MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-29-103, which defines obscenity, because the

Ordinance contains only one prong of § 97-29-103’s three-part

obscenity test.19 Section 97-29-103's definition of obscenity

mirrors the three-pronged Miller obscenity test, while the

Ordinance only contains the “serious literary, artistic, scientific

or political value” prong. We reject J&B’s argument because, as

the Supreme Court has noted on several occasions, nudity and

obscenity are not synonymous, see Schad, 452 U.S. at 66, 101 S. Ct.

at 2181; Erznoznik, 422 U.S. at 213, 95 S. Ct. at 2275, and

therefore the state’s ban on the latter does not preempt the City’s

ban on the former. See Maynard, 691 So. 2d at 388. Moreover, as we

noted in our discussion of vagueness, supra, if the City were

required to include all three prongs of Miller and MISS. CODE ANN.

§ 97-29-103, it could regulate only obscene nudity, which would
20 In relevant part, § 19-5-103 provides:

For the purposes of this section the term “nudity” means uncovered,

or less than opaquely covered, postpubertal human genitals, pubic

areas, the postpubertal human female breast below a point

immediately above the top of the areola, or the covered human male

genitals in a discernibly turgid state. For purposes of this

definition, a female breast is considered uncovered if the nipple

only or the nipple and areola only are uncovered.

-44-

eviscerate its ability to regulate nonobscene nudity. Cf. SDJ, 837

F.2d at 1280 (rejecting topless bar’s argument that state law

preempted local ordinance because the state law addressed a

different, albeit related, area than did the local ordinance). To

the extent that MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-29-103 and the Ordinance

overlap, as noted above, no preemption results. See City of

Hattiesburg, 654 So. 2d at 518. 

Finally, J&B argues that MISS. CODE ANN. § 19-5-103,20 which

defines “nudity” for purposes of determining the regulatory powers

of a county board of supervisors, constitutes the state’s official

definition of nudity for all purposes, and that because the

Ordinance’s definition of nudity is inconsistent with this statute,

the Ordinance is preempted. See Steverson v. City of Vicksburg,

900 F. Supp. 1, 11 n.9 (S.D. Miss. 1994) (suggesting in dicta that

this section may be the state’s definition of nudity). The plain

language of the statute, however, contradicts J&B’s argument: “For

purposes of this section the term “nudity” means . . .” In our

view, the state would not have begun this statute with the words,

“[f]or purposes of this section” if the state had wanted to create

an all-encompassing definition of nudity. Bearing in mind the
-45-

Mississippi Supreme Court’s guidance that silence on the part of

the state does not indicate an intent to preempt, see Maynard, 691

So. 2d at 388, we are hesitant to say that because Mississippi has

defined “nudity” for purposes of a county board of supervisors’

powers, this definition should apply to municipalities as well.

Since § 21-17-5 now gives municipalities control over the care,

management, and control of municipal affairs “without the existence

of or reference to” specific authority delegated by the state, and

§ 19-5-103 applies only to county boards of supervisors, we find

that § 19-5-103 and the Ordinance are not inconsistent. We thus

conclude that the Ordinance is not preempted by state law.

VI

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of the City is VACATED. J&B’s arguments

for summary judgment as a matter of law are DENIED. The case is

REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
-46-

APPENDIX A

ORDINANCE PROHIBITING NUDITY IN A PUBLIC PLACE

WHEREAS, the City of Jackson has a governmental interest in

protecting order and morality and the City recognizes the societal

disapproval of nudity in public places and amongst strangers; and

WHEREAS, the City of Jackson has a legitimate interest in

combating secondary effects associated with public places where

persons who are physically present appear nude amongst strangers;

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States in Barnes v.

Glen Theatre, Inc., has held that a governing authority may

prohibit nudity in public places;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED:

Public nudity

SECTION 1 (A): A person physically present in a public place

who is not engaged in expressing a matter of serious literary,

artistic, scientific or political value who knowingly or

intentionally:

(1) engages in sexual intercourse;

(2) appears in a state of nudity; or

(3) fondles the genitals of himself, herself, or another

person;

commits public nudity, a misdemeanor.

(b) ‘Nudity’ means the showing of the human genital, anus, or the

female nipple.

SECTION 2: Any supervisor, manager, property owner, business

owner, or employer who shall knowingly suffer or permit any person

to engage in public nudity on premises under their control shall be

guilty of a misdemeanor.