## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 10,200 6 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
D O C T O R J O H N ’ S, I N C . , a U t ah C o rp o r a t i o n ; a n d J O H N H A L T O M , P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants , v. CI T Y OF RO Y; G. BL AKE W A H L E N , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas C i t yMa n a g e r ; a n d T A MMY N E L SO N , i n heroffi ci al capa ci tyas D e v e lo p m e n t S e rv ic e s M a n a g e r, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees . N o. 04- 4270

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t ri ct ofU t ah ( D. C. No . 1 : 0 3 - CV- 0 0 0 8 1 - P C )
W . A ndr ew M cC ul l ough, M cC ul l ough & A s s oci at es , L L C , M i dval e, U T ( M i chae l W . G ross , S chw art z & G oldberg, P C , w i th h i m on t he b ri efs) , for Plai nti ffs - A pp el l ants . R o b e rt C . K e ller ( Jo d yK . B u rn e tt, w ith h im o n th e b rie f ), W ill iam s & H u n t, S a lt L ake C i t y , U T , for D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees . B efor e HENR Y , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.- 2 -

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t D r. Jo h n ’s, In c . (“D r. Jo h n ’s” ) o p e ra tes sto re s th a t se ll,
am o n g o ther thin g s, a ra n g e o f “ ad u lt ” p rod u cts. A fter D r. Jo h n ’s l o ca ted a store
w i t hi n i t s ci t yl i m i t s , D efe ndant
- A ppel l ee RoyC i ty( “R oyC i ty ” or“C i ty ”) pas s ed
an o rdin an ce su bjecti n g “se x u all yo ri en ted b u sine sses ” to c ertain reg u lat ion s. D r. J ohn’ s chal l enged thi s or di nance on a var i etyof cons t i tut i onal gr ounds ; the d istri ct co u rtrejected them all . W e a g ree w ith the m ajorityo f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s ruli n g s, an d thu s A F F IR M in su b stan ti al pa rt . H o w ev er, on e o f th e issu es b efo re t he di s t r i ctcour tw as w hethert he or di nance w as pr oper l ys uppor t ed as t ar get i ng th e u n to w a rd “ se c o n d a rye ffe c ts” a d u lt b u sin e ss e s a re th o u g h t to p ro d u c e . It i s u n clea r fro m the re co rd w h at ev iden ce su p p o rt ing an d co u n teri n g the C ity ’s
ra tio n a le th a t th e o rd in a n c e w a s in d e e d n e c e ss a ryto p re v e n t th e se n e g a tiv e e ffe c ts wa s p r e s e n t e d t o , a n d c o n s i d e r e d b y , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t . We th e r e fo r e RE M AND th is c a s e fo r c o n s id e ra tio n o f th a t is s u e . BA CKGROUND D r . J ohn’ s s t ocks a var i etyof “a dul t ” pr oduct s , r angi ng fr om s w i m w earand li n g erie to “ m arit al aids” to se x u all y -ex p li citb o o k s an d v ideo s. In F eb rua ry 2001, D r . J ohn’ s appl i ed forand r ece i ved a ge ner al bus i nes s l i cens e t o oper at e a store in R o yC ity . P lai n ti ff-A p p ell an t Joh n H alt o m , a m ajor sh are h o lder in D r. Jo h n ’s p a re n t co m p a n y , is a lso in v o lv e d in th e o p e ra tio n o f D r. Jo h n ’s R o yC ity
s t or e.- 3 -

Soon aft erD r . J ohn’ s came t o R oyC i ty , the C i tyadopt ed an or di nance r equi r i ng “s exual l yor i ent ed bus i nes s es ” ( “SO B s ”) and thei rempl oy ees t o fol l ow c e rta in re g u latio n s. T h e o rd in a n c e ’s s tate d p u rp o se is “ to re g u late se x u a lly
or i ent ed bus i nes s es i n or dert o pr om ot e the hea l th, s afe ty , m or al s , and gene r al
w elfa re o f th e c it izen s o f th e C ity , an d to es tablish rea so n ab le an d u n ifo rm r egul at i ons t o pr eventt he del et er i ous s econda ryeffect s of s exual l yor i ent ed bus i nes s es w i t hi n t he C i t y . ” The or di nance al s o s et s for th fi ndi ngs demonstr at i ng t he nee d fort he r egul at i ons , w hi ch ar e bas ed on ca s e l aw , C ongr es s i onal t es t i m ony , r es ear ch pape r s , and var i ous s tudi es fr om otherar eas aboutt he second aryeffects of S O B s. T he or di nance pr ovi des t hatSO B s and thei rempl oy ees m us tobt ai n l i cens es in o rde r t o o p era te i n the C ity . T h e li ce n se a p p li ca ti o n req u ir es th e a p p li ca n t’ s name, addr es s , pr oof of a ge, w hethert he appl i cantort he bus i nes s has had a pr evi ous SO B l i cens e s us pended orr evoked, and w hethert he appl i canthas been convi ct ed of orpl ed gui l t yt o cert ai n “s peci fi ed cr i m i nal act i vi t i es . ” I f the appl i cat i on i s fora bus i nes s l i cens e ( r athert han an e m pl oy ee l i cens e) , t he appl i cantm us tal s o pr ovi de the bus i nes s name, l ocat i on, and cont acti nform at i on; t he name of the age ntauthor i zed t o r ece i ve s ervi ce of pr oces s ; and a s ket ch of the l ay ou tof the prem i ses.- 4 -

U p o n th e fili n g o f

a c o m p lete d a p p lica tio n , the C ityis to iss u e im m e d iate ly a t empora r yl i cens e t o t he appl i cant ; a perm anentl i cens e i s ther eaf t eri s s ued
un l ess the ap pli cant: i s und er 18; fai l ed to provide i nfo rm at i on or provi ded fal se i nform at i on on t he appl i cat i on form ; fai l ed t o paythe appl i cat i on fee ; w as co n v ict ed o f a “sp ec ifi ed crim inal ac ti v ity ”; refu sed an insp ec ti o n o f a n S O B ’s pr emi s es byt he C i t yw i t hi n t he pr ece di ng y ear ; orhad an SO B l i cens e r evoked
w i t hi n t he pr ece di ng y ear . I f the appl i cat i on i s fora bus i nes s l i cens e ( as oppos ed t o an empl oy ee l i cens e) , t he appl i cat i on m ayal s o be deni ed i f the pr emi s es do not conform t o t he s ket ch of the l ay outof the pr emi s es s ubm i t t ed w i th the appl i cat i on. T h e o rd in a n c e su bjec ts S O B s to v a rio u s ru les a n d re g u latio n s. A p p lica n ts
m us tpayan i ni t i al appl i cat i on fee and an a nnual r enew al fee ; t he fe es ar e s etby t h e Ci t yCo u n c i l a n d ma yn o te x c e e d $ 2 0 0 i n i t i a l l y/ $ 1 0 0 a n n u a l l yfo ra n S OB l i c e n s e o r$ 1 0 0 i n i t i a l l y/ $ 5 0 a n n u a l l y fo ra n S O B e m p l o ye e l i c e n s e . A d d i t i o n a l l y, an SO B ’ s oper at i ng hour s ar e l i m i t ed t o betw een 10: 00 am and 11: 00 pm , t he bus i nes s m us tpos tand enfor ce a no- l oi t er i ng pol i cy , and ther e mustbe app ropri at e l i gh t i ng around t he ex t eri or of t he p rem i ses. U n d e r th e o rd in a n c e , S O B s a re c las sified in to e ig h t ca teg o rie s. T h e C ity
c o n ten d s th a t D r. Jo h n ’s fa lls in to c a teg o ry2

— “ a d u lt b o o k sto re s, a d u lt n o v e lty
s t or es , adul tvi deo s t or es . ” The or di nance defi nes a ca t egory2 bus i nes s as s t or es- 5 -

w i t h a “s i gni fi cantors ubs t ant i al por t i on” of thei rs t ock orfl oors pace orr evenue d e v o ted to o r d e riv in g f ro m a d u lt m e d ia ( e .g ., b o o k s, m a g a z in e s, v id e o s) o r a d u lt

“ to y s .” I n D ece m ber2002, t he C i typr es ent ed D r . J ohn’ s w i th a copyof the
o r d i n a n c e a n d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n ma t e r i a l s . I n s t e a d o f c o mp l e t i n g t h e S OB appl i cat i on, D r . J ohn’ s s oughtr enew al of i t s gener al bus i nes s l i cens e and s entt he C itya lette r sta tin g th a t ith a d re v iew e d th e o rd in a n c e a n d d id n o t b e liev e it fe ll
u n d e rt h e d e fi n i t i o n o f a n S OB. T h e lette r a lso e x p lain e d th a t a c a se p e n d in g in t h e Ut a h S u p r e me Co u r t

— M i d v a l e Ci tyv . Ha l t o m— d e a l twi th a s i mi l a rS OB
or di nance as appl i ed t o anotherD r . J ohn’ s s t or e, and thatD r . J ohn’ s fel tt he
r es ol ut i on of thatcas e w oul d “ans w ert he ques t i ons ” of w hetheri tw oul d need a n S O B l i c e n s e t o d o b u s i n e s s i n t h e C i ty. T he l et t ers ugges t ed thatt he C i tydel ay anyact i on agai ns tD r . J ohn’ s pendi ng the out come of M i dval e. In M ay20 03 , t he U t ah S up rem e C ou rtdecided M i dv al e and rul ed ag ai nst D r . J ohn’ s . See M i dval e C i t yC orp. v. H al t om , 73 P. 3d 334 ( U t ah 2003) . E ven s o, D r . J ohn’ s agai n r efus ed t o compl et e the R oyC i tySO B appl i cat i on and i ns t ead f

i l ed the pr es entcas e pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, al l egi ng thatt he C ity ’s o rd in a n c e w a s a n u n c o n stitu tio n a l re stric tio n o n sp e e c h . T h e C ity count er cl ai m ed, s eeki ng a courtor derr equi r i ng D r . J ohn’ s t o compl yw i th the
or di nance .T he C i t ydoes notappea l t hi s deci s i on. 1 - 6 - B ot h s i des then moved fors um m aryj udgm ent , w i th the C i tyar gui ng that D r. Jo h n ’s c h a llen g e sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d a n d th a t itsh o u ld b e o rd e re d to c o m p ly
w i t h t he or di nance , and D r . J ohn’ s ur gi ng thatthe or di nance be dec l ar ed
u n c o n stitu tio n a l. T h e d istric t co u rt c o n sid e re d a n d rejec ted D r. Jo h n ’s a rg u m e n ts
as t o t he or di nance ’ s uncons t i tut i onal i ty , and ther efor e ent er ed j udgm enti n the C i t y ’ s favoron t hi s i s s ue. T he courtt hen tur ned t o the C i ty ’ s r eques tforan or der req u ir ing D r. Jo h n ’s t o co m p lyw ith the o rdin an ce , w h ich tu rne d o n w h ethe r D r. J ohn’ s m ett he or di nance ’ s defi ni t i on of an SO B . N ot i ng thatt hi s w as an i s s ue of
s t at e l aw , t he courtdecl i ned t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s i s s ue and thus d e n ied th e C ity ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is p o in t. 1 D r. Jo h n ’s th e n filed a m o tio n to a m e n d th e d istric t co u rt’s ju d g m e n t, as ki ng t he courtt o cons t rue the or di nance ’ s “s i gni fi cantors ubs t ant i al ” l anguage b ysp e c if

y in g a p e rc e n tag e o f

in v e n to ryo r flo o rsp a c e o r re v e n u e th a t w o u ld d eterm ine w h ethe r or n o t a pa rt icular b u sine ss w as a n S O B . T h e d istri ct co u rt d e c lin e d to d o s o , a n d th is a p p e a l fo llo w e d . DI S CU S S I ON W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i ons on m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent de novo, appl y i ng t he s ame l egal s t andar d us ed byt he di s tr i ctcourt . G r egoryv. F o rtB ri d g er R en d ez v o u s A ss’n , 4 4 8 F . 3 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 1 9 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m ary- 7 -

ju d g m e n t is p ro p e r w h e n th e re c o rd sh o w s “ th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to anym at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c).

I . C ons t i t ut i ona l St andi ng

“ S tan d in g . . . rais e s ju risd ictio n a l q u e stio n s a n d w e a re re q u ire d to cons i dert he i s s ue s ua s pont e t o ens ur e thatt her e i s an A r t i cl e I I I cas e or contr over s ybefor e us . ” R ect orv. C i tyand C ountyof D enver , 348 F. 3d 935, 942 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he doctr i ne of s t andi ng l i m i t s w ho m ay b rin g a m a tter b e fo re th e fe d e ra l co u rts fo r a dju d ica tio n . T h e “ irre d u c ib le
cons t i tut i onal m i ni m um of s t andi ng” r equi r es pl ai nt i ffs t o s how ( 1) t hatt heyhave
s uffe r ed an “ i nj ur yi n fac t , ” ( 2) thatt he i nj uryi s “fa i r l ytr ace abl e t o the chal l enged a ct i on of the defendant , ” and ( 3) t hatt he i nj ur yi s l i kel yt o be
r edr es s ed bya fa vor abl e dec i s i on. L uj an v. D efe nder s of W i l dl i fe, 504 U . S. 555, 560- 61 ( 1992) ( quot at i ons , al t er at i ons om i t t ed) . W her e, as her e, t he pr ocee di ngs have r eac hed the s um m aryj udgm ents t age, t he pl ai nt i ff be ar s t he bur den of
se tti n g fo rth (b ya ffid a v it o r o th e r e v id e n c e ) sp e c ific fa c ts th a t, i f p ro v e d , w o u ld
e sta b lish th e se e lem e n ts. N o v a H e a lth S y s. v . G a n d y , 4 1 6 F .3 d 1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).“St andi ng i s det erm i ned as of the t i m e the ac t i on i s br ought . ” N ova 2 H eal t h Sy s . , 416 F. 3d at1154. - 8 - A n i nj ur yi n fac tdoes notaut om at i cal l yoccurby“[t ] he mer e pr es ence on t he s t atut e books of an unc ons t i tut i onal s t atut e . . . , even i f [pl ai nt i ffs ] al l ege a n i nhi bi t i ng effecton cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed conduc tpr ohi bi t ed bythe s t atut e. ” W in sn e ss v . Y o c o m , 4 3 3 F .3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W h e re a law h a s y e t to b e e n fo r c e d a g a i n s tt h e p l a i n t i ff, th e p l a i n t i ff i s f u r th e rr e q u i r e d t o s h o w a “cr edi bl e thr eat ” of e nfor cement . I d. ; s ee a l s o Pac. Fr ont i erv. Pl eas antG r ove C i t y , 414 F. 3d 1221, 1229 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( “[A ] pl ai nt i ff e s t abl i s hes s t andi ng w hen a c r edi bl e thr eatof pr os ecut i on orothercons equenc es fol l ow i ng fr om the statu te’s en fo rce m en t i s sh o w n . ”) (q u o tat ion o m itted). D r . J ohn’ s conce des i n i t s openi ng br i ef that , atthe t i m e thi s s ui tw as fi l ed, 2 th e o rd in a n c e h a d n o t b e e n e n fo rc e d a g a in st it. H o w e v e r, th e C ityh a s p lain ly i ndi cat ed thati ti nt ends t o r equi r e D r . J ohn’ s compl i ance ; fol l ow i ng the U t ah S up rem e C ou rt ’s M i dv al e decis i on , t he C i tyw rot e t o D r. John ’s t hat i tm ust compl et e the r equi r ed SO B appl i cat i ons “orappr opr i at e l egal act i on w i l l be
co m m en ce d . ” D r. Jo h n ’s fa ce s the ch o ice b etw ee n the p rov erb ial roc k an d a h ard pl ace . I f, on t he one ha nd, D r . J ohn’ s s houl d acc ede t o the C i ty ’ s demand and
a p p lyfo r a n S O B lice n se , the re c o rd c o n tain s e v id e n c e o f th e b u rd e n s th a t w o u ld befa l l i t . Forexampl e, D r . J ohn’ s s t or e managers t at ed thatr egi s tr at i on as an- 9 -

SO B w oul d l ead t o “a da i l ycl os i ng of the bus i nes s dur i ng cert ai n hour s , ” and J ohn C oi l , a s eni oroffi ci al w i t h D r . J ohn’ s , t es t i fi ed thatthe r equi r ementthat
every empl oy ee be l i cens ed cr eat es di ffi cul ty for the company . I f, on the other hand, D r . J ohn’ s r efus es t o appl yfora l i cens e, i tfac es fi nes of up t o $2, 500 per d a y ; th e o rd in a n c e f

u rth e r a u th o riz e s th e C ity“ to in stitu te c rim in a l o r c iv il p r o c e e d i n g s n e c e s s a r y fo r ” i t s e n fo r c e m e n t . T h u s , D r . J o h n ’ s h a s m e tt h e i nj u r yi n- fac tr equi r ement . C f. A i d forW om en v. Foul s t on, 441 F. 3d 1101, 1111 n. 10 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (n o tin g th a t p lain tiff ’s “ ‘if . . . the n ,’ ap p ro a c h to inju ry , (i. e ., if
we d o n ’ tfo l l o w th e [ At t o r n e yGe n e r a l ’ s ] i n t e rp r e t a t i o n [ o f a s t a tu t e ] , t h e n we fac e pr os ecut i on, buti f w e do fol l ow i t , t hen w e w i l l harm ourpat i ent s ’ and cl i ent s ’ cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ) ” w as s uffi ci entt o s how i nj ury - i n- fac t“i f Pl ai nt i ffs
w oul d be i nj ur ed w hethert heyfol l ow t he [A t t orneyG ener al ’ s ] i nt erpr et at i on or n o t. ”). G iv e n th is inju ry-in -fa c t, c a u s a tio n a n d re d re s s a b ilty a re a ls o e s ta b lis h e d . T h e inju ryis p lain lyc a u se d b yth e C ity ’s p a ss a g e o f th e o rd in a n c e a n d c re d ib le t hr eatt o enfor ce i t . Fur t her , t he i nj uryw oul d be r edr es s ed bya dec l ar at i on that t h e o r d i n a n c e i s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a n d a n i nj u n c t i o n a g a i n s ti t s e n fo r c e m e n t . We t her efor e conc l ude thatD r . J ohn’ s has cons t i tut i onal s t andi ng t o chal l enge the
o r d i n a n c e ’ s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t y. II. M er it s- 10 -

D r. John ’s at t acks t he o rdi nan ce’s con st i tuti on al i tyon several front s, c laim in g th a t: (1 ) it is u n c o n stitu tio n a llyv a g u e a n d th u s v o id o n its fa c e ; (2 ) it gi ves t he C i t y“unbr i dl ed di s cr et i on” overw ho m us tobt ai n an SO B l i cens e and t hus oper at es as an uncons t i tut i onal pr i orr es tr ai nt ; ( 3) i ti s nota val i d “t i m ep lac e -m a n n e r” re stric tio n o n sp e e c h b e c a u se it i s n o t n a rro w lytailo re d to re g u late onl ybus i nes s es t hatpr oduce a dver s e “s econda ryeffect s ”; ( 4) the pr ovi s i on deny i ng an SO B empl oy ee l i cens e t o per s ons convi ct ed of c er t ai n cr i m es oper at es as a pri or r estrai nt on t ho se i nd i vidual s’ exerci se of t heirF i rs tA m end m ent r i gh t s; and ( 5) i ti nfr i nges on cus t om er s ’ r i ght s t o pr i vacyi n thei rpur chas e of “ m ar i t al
a id s .” A . V ag u en ess A s a bas i c mat t erof due pr oces s , a l aw i s “voi d forvaguene s s ” i f i tdoes notcl ear l ydefi ne i t s pr ohi bi t i ons . G r ayned v. C i tyof R ockfor d, 408 U . S. 104, 1 0 8 (1 9 7 2 ). W h e re a law d e a ls w ith a re a s o f F irst A m e n d m e n t im p o rt, th e re is t he addi t i onal conce r n t hatt he unce r t ai n t erm s w i l l i nhi bi tt hos e Fi r s tA m endment fr eedoms, as “ci t i zens [w i l l ] s t eerfarw i derof the unl aw ful zone than i f the bo un dari es of t he fo rbi dd en areas w ere cl earl ym arked. ” Id. at10 9 (quo t at i on s, al t er at i ons om i t t ed) . T hus , i n t he Fi r s tA m endmentcont ext , “[s ] tr i ct ers t andar ds
o f p e rm iss ib le s tatu to ryv a g u e n e ss m a yb e a p p lied .” H yn e s v . M a y o r a n d C o u n c il
o f B o rou g h o f O rad ell , 4 2 5 U . S . 6 1 0 , 6 2 0 (19 7 6 ).A tor al ar gum ent , D r . J ohn’ s cl ai m ed thati tchal l enged the or di nance as 3 v a g u e b o th fa c ially(i.e., v a g u e a s to e v e ry o n e ) a n d a s a p p lied (i.e., v a g u e a s to D r . J o h n ’ s ) . H o w e v e r , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e rc o n s i d e r e d a n d a d d r e s s e d o n l y a fa c ia l v a g u e n e s s c h a lle n g e . O n appea l , D r . J ohn’ s does notar gue thatt hi s w as err oneous . B as ed upon ourr evi ew of the compl ai ntbel ow and D r . J ohn’ s br i efi ng on appea l , w e conc l ude thati ti s r ai s i ng onl ya cha l l enge of fac i al vaguene s s and, a c c o rd in g ly, th a t is th e is s u e w e a d d re s s . W e have addr es s ed, i n t he pr evi ous s ect i on of thi s opi ni on, t he 4 cons t i tut i onal s t andi ng i s s ue. H er e, w e addr es s onl yt he prudent i al s t andi ng i s s ue. - 11 - T he di s t r i ct cour t r ej ect ed D r . J ohn’ s fac i al vaguene s s chal l enge, fi ndi ng 3 th a t D r. J o h n ’s la c k e d p ru d e n tia l a n d c o n s titu tio n a l s ta n d in g to ra is e th is c la im . 4 W h il e w e d isag ree as to this co n clus ion , w e n o n ethe less affirm the d istri ct co u rt on t he gr ound t hatt he or di nance i s notvague on i t s fac e. 1. Prude nt i al St andi ng T h e d istri ct co u rtfo u n d , an d the C ityarg u es o n ap p ea l, that D r. Jo h n ’s l acke d s t andi ng t o br i ng a fa ci al vaguene s s chal l enge. H er e, i ti s cl eart he R oy C i t yor di nance m i ghtbe uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o D r . J ohn' s , s o thati thas
s ta n d in g o n its o w n . 2. F acial va gu en ess

“ F a c ial c h a llen g e s a re stro n g m e d icin e ,” a n d th u s w e “ m u st b e v ig ilan t in appl y i ng a mostexac t i ng anal y s i s t o s uch cl ai m s . ” W ar d v. U t ah, 398 F. 3d 1239, 1246- 47 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . T hough perhaps “effi ci enti n the abs tr act , ” fa ci al chal l enges r i s k “l os i ng t he l es s ons t aughtbyt he part i cul ar . ” Sabr i v. U ni t ed S tate s, 5 4 1 U .S . 6 0 0 , 6 0 9 (2 0 0 4 ). It is fo r th is re a so n th a t a p a rtym u st s h o w , at aT he Supr eme C our thas been l es s t han cl earas t o w hata partym us ts how 5 i n or dert o s ucce ed on a faci al vaguene s s chal l enge. C om par e U ni t ed St at es v. Sal erno, 481 U . S. 739, 745 ( 1987) ( “A fac i al chal l enge t o a l egi s l at i ve A cti s , of cour s e, t he mostdi ffi cul tchal l enge t o m ounts ucce s s ful l y , s i nce the cha l l enger m us tes t abl i s h t hatno s etof ci r cumst ance s exi s t s underw hi ch the A ctw oul d be val i d. ”) ( emphasi s added) , w i t h M or al es , 527 U . S. at55 n. 22 ( 1999) ( “To t he e x ten t w e h a v e c o n sis ten tlya rticu late d a c lea r sta n d a rd fo r fa c ial c h a llen g e s, it is nott he . . . form ul at i on [announc ed i n Sal erno] , w hi ch has neverbeen the d e c is iv e fa c to r i n a n yd e c is io n o f th is C o u rt , in c lu d in g S a le rn o its e lf . . . . Si nce w e . . . concl ude thatvaguene s s perm eat es t he or di nance , a fa ci al chal l enge is a p p ro p ri a te .” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). In anyeven t , w hethera partybri ng i ng a facial vag uen ess chal l eng e m ust show vag uen ess i n all of a st atute’ s appli cat i on s or m erel yvag uen ess i n the vast m aj or i t yof i t s i nt ended a ppl i cat i ons , w e conc l ude thatD r . J ohn’ s fac i al chal l enge fai l s. - 12 - m in im u m , tha t th e c h a llen g e d law w o u ld b e v a g u e in th e v a st m ajo rityo f its appl i cat i ons ; t hati s , t hat“vague nes s perm eat es the t extof [the] l aw . ” C i tyof C h icag o v . M o rales, 52 7 U . S . 4 1 , 5 5 (19 9 9 ). 5 T he or di nance s peci fi cal l ydefi nes an adul tbooks t or e/novel tys t or e/vi deo st ore as a com m er ci al es t abl i s hm entw hi ch has s i gni fi cantors ubs t ant i al por t i on o f its sto c k -in tra d e o r d e riv e s a sig n ifica n t o r su b sta n tial p o rtio n o f its r evenue s ordevot es a s i gni fi cantors ubs t an ti al p or t i on of i t s i nt er i or bus i nes s or advert i s i ng, or m ai nt ai ns a subs t ant i al s ect i on of i t s s al es or di s pl ays pace t o [s i c] t he s al e orr en tal , foranyform of cons i der at i on, of anyone orm or e of the fol l ow i ng: 1. B ooks , m agaz i nes , p eriod icals orotherpr i nt ed m at t er , or ph otographs, fi l m s, m oti on pictu re s, video casset t es, com pact di scs, sli d e s , o r o th e r v isu a l re p re se n tatio n s w h ich a re c h a ra c ter ize d b yth e ir empha sis upon t he exhi bi t i on ordes cr i pt i on of s peci fi ed s exual act i vit i es or s pecifi ed an at om i cal areas ;- 13 - 2. I ns t rum ent s , devi ces , or par aphernal i a w hi ch ar e des i gned foruse o r m arket ed pr i m ar i l yfors t i m ul at i on of hum an geni t al or gans or for sadom asochis t i c use or abu se of t hem sel ves or ot hers. D r . J ohn’ s chal l enges t w o pr ovi s i ons of thi s defi ni t i on: ( 1) t he t erm “s i gni fi cant ors ubs t ant i al por t i on” ( t he “qua nt i ty ” t es t ) ; and ( 2) t he t erm “cha r act er i zed by t hei remphasi s upon t he exhi bi t i on ordes cr i pt i on of s peci fi ed s exual act i vi t i es or sp ec ifi ed an atom ical area s” (the “q u ali ty ” test).
a . “ S ig n ifica n t o r su b sta n tia l” A sta tu te is u n c o n stitu tio n a llyv a g u e fo r o n e o f tw o re a so n s: it eith e r “ fa ils t o pr ovi de peopl e of or di naryi nt el l i gence a r eas onabl e opportuni tyt o under s t and
w hatconducti tpr ohi bi t s ”; ori t“author i zes oreven e ncour ages arbi tr aryand di s cr i m i nat or yenfor cement . ” H i l l v. C ol or ado, 530 U . S. 703, 732 ( 2000) . I n t he cont extof D r . J ohn’ s fac i al chal l enge— w her e thes e conc erns w oul d have t o be pr es enti n atl eas tt he vas tm aj or i tyof ca s es — w e ca nnotconcl ude thatt he quant i t yt es tl anguage i s i m perm i s s i bl yvague. A lth o u g h there m ayb e ins tanc es w h ere an ad u ltb o o k store w o u ld b e u n su re of w hetheri t s s t ock, fl oor s pace , orr evenue i s m ade up of a “s i gni fi cantor su b sta n tial p o rtio n ” o f a d u lt m a ter ial, th e re a re m yria d in sta n c e s in w h ich it
w o u ld n o t. If, fo r e x a m p le, V icto ria ’s S e c re t so ld a fe w c o p ies o f a n a d u lt
m a g a z in e a lo n g w ith its re g u lar sto c k o f lin g e rie , itc e rta in lyw o u ld n o t w o n d e r if t he or di nance appl i ed t o i t . O r , i f a s t or e chos e t o carrynothi ng butadul tvi deos
a n d to y s, it w o u ld h a v e n o d o u b t th a t itw a s re q u ire d to o b tain a n S O B lice n se to- 14 -

d o so . In sh o rt, i n m a n ysitu a tio n s, “ p e o p le o f o rd in a ryin tellig e n c e ” w o u ld
c le a rl yu n d e rs ta n d w h e th e r o r n o t th e o rd in a n c e a p p lie d to th e m . In th e sa m e w a y , in m a n yc a se s th e o rd in a n c e c a n n o t b e sa id to p e rm it
arbi t r aryenfor cement . T he C i t yhas announce d a s t andar d— i tw i l l notr equi r e a b u sin e ss to o b tain a n S O B lice n se u n les s it sto c k s a “ sig n ifica n t o r su b sta n tial” amount of adul tm at er i al . A l t hough thi s s t andar d gi ves offi ci al s s om e di s cr et i on overw hi ch bus i nes s es t heydeem t o qual i fyas SO B s , i tdoes notves tthe s or tof “virtuall ycom plet e dis cret i on ” t hat has form ed the basi s for faci al vag uen ess at t acks . K ol enderv. L aw s on, 461 U . S. 352, 358 ( 1983) . T her e maybe occ as i ons w h e re a rb itrar ye n fo rc e m e n t m ig h t o c c u r, b u t th e sta n d a rd g iv e n to o fficia ls
s at i s fi es t hi s courtt hats uch a r i s k i s notpr es entt o s uch a de gr ee a s t o j us t i fy fa c ia l in v a lid a tio n . O urconcl us i on t hatt he quant i tyt es ts ur vi ves a fa ci al vaguene s s chal l enge i s bol s t er ed bycompar i s on t o ot herl aw s chal l enged a s uncons t i tut i onal l yvague o n their fa ce . F o r ex am p le, in M o rales, 52 7 U . S . at 47 , 5 6 -57 , the S u p rem e C o u rt found a s t atut e pr ohi bi t i ng “l oi t er i ng, ” def i ned as “r emai n[i ng] i n anyone pl ace w i t h no appar entpurpos e, ” t o be uncons t i tut i onal l yvague. I ti s di ffi cul tt o i m agi ne how anyci t i zen . . . s t andi ng i n a publ i c pl ace w i t h a gr oup of peopl e w oul d know if he ors he had a n “appa r ent purpos e.” If sh e w er e t al ki ng t o anotherper s on, w oul d s he have an appar entpurpos e? I f s he w er e fr equent ly ch ecki ng herw at ch and l ooki ng expec t ant l ydow n t he s tr eet , w ould s he have an appa r ent purpos e?“ Te n d s t o d i s tu rb ” h a d p r e v i o u s l yb e e n l i mi t e d b yt h e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me 6 C our ti n anothercas e t o m ean “ i m m i nentt hr eatof vi ol ence , ” thus t he G ra yn e d C o u rt a ss u m e d th e sta te c o u rt w o u ld in terp re t th e R o c k fo rd o rd in a n c e to “pr ohi bi tonl yactual ori m m i nenti nt er fer ence w i th the ‘ peac e orgood or der ’ of t he s chool . ” 408 U . S. at111- 12. - 15 - Id . at 5 6 -5 7 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). F u rth e r, th e law c o n tain e d “ n o . . . g u id e lin e s” to governm entl aw enfor cement ; “I n anypubl i c pl ace i n the ci tyof C hi cago, per s ons w ho st and or si ti n the com pan yof a g ang m em ber m aybe o rder ed to di spers e unl es s t hei rpurpos e i s appar ent . ” I d. a t 6 0 . S im il arly , in C o ates v . C ityo f C incin n ati , 4 0 2 U . S . 6 1 1 (19 7 1 ), the C o u rt rejec ted a law m a k in g it a c rim e fo r a g ro u p o f p e o p le to a ss e m b le o n a sid e w a lk
a n d “ c o n d u c t th e m s e lv e s in a m a n n e r a n n o y in g to p e rs o n s p a s s in g b y .” Id . a t 6 1 1 . T he C our tfound the l aw vague “ beca us e i ts ubj ect s the exe r ci s e of the r i ghtof
as s embl yt o an unas cert ai nabl e s t andar d”; C on d u ct thatannoy s s om e peopl e does notannoyother s . T hus , the o rdin an ce is va g u e, n o t in th e sen se th at i t r eq u ir es a p erso n to co n fo rm hi s conduct t o an i m pr eci s e but compre hens i bl e norm at i ve s t andar d, but rather i n the sense that no st and ard of con du cti s speci fi ed at al l . A s a re s u lt, m e n o f

c o m m o n in tellig e n c e m u st n e c e ss a rilyg u e ss a t it s m eani ng. Id . a t 6 1 4 (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). In contr ast , i n G rayned v. C i tyof R ock ford, the C ou rtup held an an t i no i se or di nance pr ohi bi t i ng di ver s i ons “w hi ch di s turb[] or t end[] t o di s turb t he pea ce 6
o r g o o d o rd e r o f

[ a ] s c h o o l s e s s io n o r c la s s .” 4 0 8 U .S . a t 1 0 8 (fo o tn o te a d d e d ).- 16 -

N ot i ng t hat“w e ca n neverexpec tm athemat i cal cert ai ntyfr om ourl anguage , ” and acknow l edgi ng t hatt he or di nance ’ s t erm s w er e “mar ked byfl exi bi l i tyand
reas on able br eadth, rather than m et i culous speci fi ci ty , ” t he C ou rtno nethel ess c o n c lu d e d th a t “ it is c le a r w h a t th e o rd in a n c e a s a w h o le p ro h ib its .” Id . a t 1 1 0 . T h e R o yC ityo rd in a n c e ’s q u a n titytes t is c lo se r to th e G ra yn e d o rd in a n c e , w ith fl exi bl e and r eas onabl ybr oad t erm s thats t i l l pr ovi de the nec es s arygui dance , than itis t o tho se law s stru ck d o w n in M o rales an d C o ates— law s lack ing an ystan d ard
o f c o n d u ct w h atso ev er. W e no t e t hat m anyothercou rt s t o h ave co nsi dered an adu l tbu si ness o rd in a n c e ’s “ sig n ifica n t o r su b sta n tial” lan g u a g e h a v e sim ilarlyc o n c lu d e d th a t it
s ur vi ves fac i al chal l enge. See I L Q I nves t m ent s , I nc. v. C i tyof R oches t er , 25 F. 3d 1413, 1418- 19 ( 8t h C i r . 1994) ( “s ubs t ant i al ors i gni fi cant ” i s not“devoi d of
mea ni ng fu l l e gi s l a t i ve s t a nd a r ds ” ) ; M om N Pop s , I nc . v. Ci tyof Char l ott e , 97 9 F. S u p p . 3 7 2 , 3 9 2 , 3 9 3 (W .D .N .C . 1 9 9 7 ) (“ su b sta n tial o r sig n ifica n t” is “ n o t d e v o id of m eani ngful l egi s l at i ve s t andar ds and [i s ] r eas onabl ys peci fi c and pr eci s e, b e a rin g in m in d th a t u n a v o id a b le im p re c isio n is n o t fa tal a n d c e les tial p re c isio n is notnece s s ary . ”) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) ; 15192 T hi r t een M i l e R oad, I nc. v. C i tyof W arr en, 626 F. Supp. 803, 820 ( E . D . M i ch. 1985) ( “[T] he w or d ‘ s ubs t ant i al ’ as us ed i n t he def

i ni t i on of A dul tB ook St or e i s nots o i ndefi ni t e as t o r enderthe O r di nance voi d and unenfor cea bl e. T hatt erm has been c ons trued as havi ng an- 17 -

asc ertaina b le m ea n ing in n u m ero u s statutorysch em es.”) (qu o tat ion o m itted); C l i ne v. C i t yof O kl a. C i t y , 839 P. 2d 657, 658, 659 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1992) ( hol di ng “s i gni fi cantpor t i on of i t s s t ock i n tr ade” defi ni t i on notvague on i t s fac e, b u t vag u e a s ap p li ed to p lai n ti ff). B u t cf. E ll w est S tereo T h ea ter, Inc . v . B o n er, 7 1 8 F . S u p p . 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 8 1 (M .D . T e n n . 1 9 8 9 ) (fin d in g “ su b sta n tial o r sig n ifica n t”
uncons t i tut i onal l yvague be caus e ci tyoffi ci al s i n char ge of e nfor ci ng the
or di nance coul d notdefi ne w hatthe phr as e meant ; “C l ear l y , i f the r egul at i ng a u t h o r i t y c a n n o td e t e r m i n e t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t s w h i c h a r e s u bj e c tt o i t s a u th o r i ty, t he es t abl i s hm ent s t hemsel ves cannotbe expe ct ed t o det erm i ne w hethertheyneed t o be l i cens ed ornot . ”) ; C i t yof K noxvi l l e v. E nt m ’ t . R es . , L L C , 166 S. W . 3d 650, 6 5 6 -5 7 (T e n n . 2 0 0 5 ) (h o ld in g “ su b sta n tial o r sig n ifica n t” to b e u n c o n stitu tio n a lly vague be caus e “the det erm i nat i on of w hatcons t i tut es a ‘ s ubs t ant i al ors i gni fi cant p o rtio n ’ o f

a b u sin e ss ’s ‘ sto c k a n d tra d e ’ u n d e r th e o rd in a n c e is a n e n tirely
su bjec tiv e o n e ” ; als o re ly in g h e a v ilyo n th e fa c t th a t “th e o ffice rs c h a rg e d w ith
e n fo rc in g th e o rd in a n c e [ a re u n a b le ] t o d e fin e its k e yte rm s ” ). I n s um , w e conc l ude thatt he or di nance ’ s defi ni t i on of an a dul tbooks t or e as o n e w ith a “ sig n ifica n t o r su b sta n tial” p o rtio n o f its w a re s d e v o ted to a d u lt
m at er i al s ur vi ves D r . J ohn’ s fac i al vaguene s s chal l enge. b. “C haract eri zed by t hei r em phasi s upon t he exh i bi t i on or des cri pt i on of

specifi ed sex u al act i vit i es or spe ci fi ed an atom i cal areas” D r. Jo h n ’s c o n ten d s th a t th is p h ra se is im p e rm iss ib lyv a g u e fo r its fa ilu re toT he or di nance defi nes “s peci fi ed s exual act i vi t i es ” as 7 1. Sex act s , nor m al orpervert ed, i ncl udi ng i nt er cour s e, or al copul at i on, m as turbat i on ors odom y ; or 2. excr et or yfunct i ons as a partof or in co nnect i on w i th anyof the act i vi t i es des cr i bed i n ( 1) above. Fur t her , t he or di nance pr ovi des that“s peci fi ed ana t om i cal ar eas ” “s hal l m ean h u m a n g e n ita ls , a n u s , c le f t o f th e b u tto c k s , o r t h e fe m a le b re a s t.”

- 18 - e x p lain h o w o n e sh o u ld d e ter m in e w h e th e r a p ictu re p u ts a n e m p h a sis o n a c e rta in por t i on of t he body . Speci fi cal l y , D r . J ohn’ s ar gues t hat“[e ] m phas i s bei ng i n t he 7
m i nd of the behol der , Pl ai nt i ffs m ai nt ai n thatt heycannotdet erm i ne i n advanc e how C i t yoffi ci al s w i l l det erm i ne w her e ‘ the emphas i s ’ of ce r t ai n r epr es ent at i ons m i ghtbe. ” I n t he cont extof a faci al chal l enge, w e ca nnotagr ee. T he or di nance chal l enged i n Y oung v. A m er i can M i ni T heatr es , I nc. cont ai ned a s i m i l ar“cha r act er i zed byan emphas i s on” pr ovi s i on. 427 U . S. 50, 61 ( 1976) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A l t hough the Supr eme C our tdi s cus s ed thi s pr ovi s i on i n t he cont extof w hethert he pl ai nt i ff ha d s t andi ng t o chal l enge the or di nance w hen i tpl ai nl yfel l w i t hi n i t s ambi t , w e fi nd i t s r eas oni ng per s uas i ve on the qu est i on of the provis i on ’s faci al vag uen ess: th e o n ly v a g u e n e ss in th e o rd in a n c e s re late s to th e a m o u n t o f se x u a lly e x p li c it a c tiv ityth a t m a yb e p o rtra y e d b e fo re th e m a ter ial c a n b e sa id t o “cha r act er i zed byan emphas i s ” on s uch mat t er . F o r m os tfi l m s t he q u e s tio n w ill b e re a d ily a n s w e ra b le . . . . I d. ( emphasi s added) . L i ke the Supr eme C our t , w e fi nd thati n m os tof theD r. Jo h n ’s a lso a rg u e s th a t o u r re fe re n c e in Z .J. G if ts D -4 , L .L .C . v . C ity 8 of Li t t l e t on , 31 1 F. 3d 12 20 ( 10 t h Ci r . 20 02 ) , r e v’ d o n o the rgr ou nd s , 54 1 U. S. 774 ( 2004) , t o w hethera s t atut e ca n be narr ow l ycons trued bys t at e court s i m pl i es t hata s t atut e i s voi d forvaguene s s i f i thas notbeen s o cons trued. H ow ever , t he di s cus s i on of narr ow cons t ruct i on w as i n the cont extof prudent i al s t andi ng; as not ed above , w her e a l aw i s unques t i onabl yappl i cabl e t o a party , t hatpartycan onl ybr i ng a fa ci al chal l enge i f the l aw ( 1) det er s a s ubs t ant i al amount of l egi t i m at e expr es s i on and ( 2) i s nots ubj ectt o a narr ow i ng cons truct i on. I d. at 1229. W e do notfi nd t hatdi s cus s i on par t i cul ar l yr el evantorhel pful t o our cons i der at i on of the mer i t s of thi s vaguene s s chal l enge. - 19 - or di nance ’ s appl i cat i ons , a bus i nes s w i l l have c l earnot i ce a s t o w hatthe mat er i al i n i t s s t or e emphas i zes . W e ther efor e j oi n the othercour t s thathave r ej ect ed fac i al vaguene s s chal l enges t o s i m i l arl anguage i n otherSO B or di nance s . See I L Q , 25 F. 3d at1419; SD J , I nc. v. C i tyof H ous t on, 837 F. 2d 1268, 1278 & n. 36 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ) (“ A c o m m o n se n se re a d in g o f [ th e d e fin iti o n o f

a n a d u lt

‘ e n t e rp r i s e , ’ wh i c h c o n t a i n s t h e p h r a s e ‘ c h a r a c t e r i z e d b ya n e mp h a s i s o n , ’ ] s h o ws t hat[i ti s ] adequa t el ypr eci s e. ”) ( di ct a) ; H ar tB ook St or es , I nc. v. E dm i s t en, 612 F. 2d 821, 833 ( 4t h C i r . 1979) ( “di s t i ngui s hed orchar act er i zed byan emphas i s on”
se x u a l ex p licitn e ss is “ re a so n a b lysp e c ific a n d p re c ise ” ), 1 5 1 9 2 T h irtee n M ile R o ad , 6 2 6 F . S u p p . at 82 0 (sam e). 8 B. Pri or R e s t r ai nt D r . J ohn’ s al s o cont ends t hatt he or di nance i s fac i al l yi nval i d as an i m perm i s s i bl e pr i orr es t r ai nton Fi r s tA m endmentact i vi ty . H i s t or i cal l y , pr i or r es t r ai nt

— t hati s , r equi r i ng appr oval befor e s peec h i s al l ow ed— w as cons i der ed aT h a t D r. Jo h n ’s h a s n o t ap p lied fo r a n S O B lice n se is n o b a rrie r to its 9 chal l enge: R e c o g n izin g th e e x p licit p ro tec tio n a c c o rd e d sp e e c h a n d th e p re ss in t he t extof th e F i r s tA m endment , ourcas es have l ong hel d thatw hen a l i cens i ng s t atut e al l egedl yves t s unbr i dl ed di s cr et i o n in a governm ent o fficia l o v e r w h e th e r to p e rm it o r d e n y e x p re ss iv e a c tiv ity , o n e w h o is s ubj ectt o t he l aw m aychal l enge i tfac i al l yw i thout the n ec essi tyof (continued...) - 20 - mo r e s i g n i fi c a n tr e s t r i c t i o n o n s p e e c h th a n s u b s e q u e n tp u n i s h me n t . 4 Ro n a l d D. R otunda and J ohn E . N ow ak, T r eat i s e on C ons t i tut i onal L aw 315 ( 1999) . A s our ju risp ru d e n c e h a s d e v e lo p e d , co u rts h a v e p e rm itt e d so m e fo rm s o f p rio r re stra in t, s u c h a s lic e n s in g re q u ir e m e n ts fo r a d u lt b u s in e s s e s , s o l ong as t w o cl as s i c evi l s of pri or r es tr ai nt s ar e notpr es ent . Fi r s t , the l i cens i ng s cheme m aynotves tunbr idled d i s cr et i on i n t he governm ent offi ci al s char ged w i t h t he re sp o n s i bi l i tyof gr ant i ng ordeny i ng the l i cens e. Second, t he l i cens i ng s cheme m ay not al l ow the dec i s i onm aker unl i m i t ed t i m e t o deci de on mat t ers affect i ng t he l i cens e; otherw i s e, t her e i s t he r i s k of i ndefi ni t el ys uppr es s i ng s peec h. E s s ence , I nc. v. C i t yof Fed. H ei ght s , 285 F. 3d 1272, 1289- 90 ( 10th C i r . 2002) (qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). D r . J ohn’ s es s ent i al l yar gues thatboth evi l s ar e pr es ent ; i tcl ai m s that( 1) th e o rd in a n c e ’s “ sig n ifica n t o r su b sta n tial” sta n d a rd g iv e s C ityo fficia ls o v e rly br oad di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng w hethera bus i nes s i s an SO B and thus r i s ks
cens or i ng s peec h; and ( 2) t he or di nance effect i vel ydeni es j udi ci al r evi ew of the C i t y ’ s deci s i on t hata bus i nes s es i s an SO B ( r i s ki ng the “i ndefi ni t [e]
su p p ressi[o n ]” o f sp ee ch ). 9(...continued) 9 fi r s tappl y i ng for , and bei ng deni ed, a l i cens e. C ityo f L a k e w o o d v . P lain D e a ler P u b l’g . C o ., 4 8 6 U .S . 7 5 0 , 7 5 5 -5 6 (1 9 8 8 ). T h is i s beca us e “i n t he ar ea of fr ee e xpr es s i on a l i cens i ng s t atut e pl aci ng unbr i dl ed di s cr et i on i n t he hands of a gove rnm entoffi ci al oragenc ycons t i tut es a pr i or r es t r ai ntand mayr es ul ti n cens or s hi p. A nd thes e evi l s engende ri dent i fi abl e r i s ks t o fr ee e xpr es s i on t hatcan be effect i vel yal l evi at ed onl ythr ough a fa ci al ch all en g e.” Id . at 75 7 (cit ati o n s o m itted). - 21 - 1. O verl y broad di s cre t i on D r. Jo h n ’s c o n ten d s th e o rd in a n c e is in v a lidb e c a u se it g iv e s c ityo fficia ls
u n b r i d l e d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r mi n i n g wh e th e ra b u s i n e s s mu s ta p p l yfo ra n S OB lice n se (i.e., w h e th e r a “ sig n ifica n t o r su b sta n tial” p o rtio n o f its b u sin e ss is d e v o ted to a d u lt m a ter ial). H o w e v e r, th e d isc re tio n g iv e n to o fficia ls g o e s o n lyto
w hatki nd of l i cens e a bus i nes s m us toper at e under , notw hethert he bus i nes s m ay oper at e i n t he fi r s tpl ace . W e conc l ude thats uch di s cr et i on does notj us t i fyfac i al i nval i dat i on of the or di nance . D r. Jo h n ’s p o in ts to se v e ra l S u p re m e C o u rt d e c isio n s in su p p o rt o f its
ar gum ent . H ow ever , t he comm on thr ead runni ng thr ough t hes e dec i s i ons — and
m i s s i ng her e— i s t hatt he di s cr et i on gi ven t o l ocal offi ci al s had a di r ecteffecton w hethers peec h w oul d occuratal l . I n C i tyof Lakew ood v. Pl ai n D eal er Publ i s hi ng C o. , t he C our tdecl ar ed uncons t i tut i onal an or di nance t hatr equi r ed
n e w sp a p e rs to a p p lyfo r p e rm its b e fo re th e yc o u ld p lac e a n e w sra c k o n c ity p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e t h e o r d i n a n c e “ g [ a v e ] t h e m a yo ru n fe t t e r e d d i s c r e t i o n t o d e n y aT h e s e p ro n o u n c e m e n ts w e re m a d e b ya th re e -m e m b e r p lu ra lity. 10 H oweve r , t hr e e othe rJ us t i c e s c on c urr e d wi th the pl ur a l i ty ’ s c on c l us i on . 49 3 U. S. at238. T he For s yt h C ount yor di nance al l ow ed forfee s up t o $1, 000 perday , and

11 “the countyadmi ni s t r at orw as empow er ed t o adj us tt he amountt o be pai d i n or der t o m eett he expe ns e i nci dentt o t he admi ni s tr at i on of the O r di nance and t o the m ai nt enanc e of publ i c or deri n t he mat t erl i cens ed. ” 505 U . S. at126- 27 (qu o tat ion s o m itted). - 22 - perm i tappl i cat i on and unbounded a uthor i tyt o condi t i on the perm i ton any addi t i onal t erm s he dee m s ‘ nece s s aryand r eas onabl e. ’ ” 486 U . S. 750, 753, 770- 72 ( 1988) . Si m i l ar l y , i n FW / PB S, I nc. v. C i tyof D al l as , the C our tfound thatan a d u lt-b u sin e ss lice n sin g sc h e m e w a s a n u n c o n stitu tio n a l p rio r re stra in t, as it
es s ent i al l yal l ow ed for“i ndefi ni t e pos tponementof the i s s uance of a l i cens e. ” 4 9 3 U .S . 2 1 5 , 2 2 6 -2 7 (1 9 9 0 ) (p lu ra lity ). In o th e r w o rd s, o fficia ls c o u ld sty m ie 10 t h e v e r y o p e n i n g o f

a n a d u l tb u s i n e s s b y s i t t i n g o n t h e l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n . F i n a l l y, i n For s yt h C ount yv. N at i onal i s tM ovement , t he C our ts truck dow n a par ade perm i tor di nance , fi ndi ng: [t ] he dec i s i on how m u ch t o char ge forpol i ce pr ot ect i on or admi ni s t r at i ve ti m e— oreven w hethert o char ge atal l

— i s l eftt o the w h im o f th e a d m in istra to r. T h e re a re n o a rticu late d sta n d a rd s e ith e r in t he or di nance ori n t he county ’ s es t abl i s hed pr act i ce. T he admi ni s tr at or i s notr equi r ed t o r el yon anyobj ect i ve fa ct or s . H e nee d not pr ovi de any expl anat i on for hi s deci s i on, and that deci s i on i s unr evi ew abl e. N othi ng i n t h e l a w o ri t s a p p l i c a t i o n p r e v e n t s th e o ffi c i a l f r o m e n c o u r a g i n g s o me view s and d i scouraging others throug h the arbi traryapp l i cat i on of fees. 5 0 5 U . S . 1 2 3 , 1 3 3 (19 9 2 ). 11 T he pr es ents cheme i s r el evant l ydi ffe r ent . H er e, R oyC i tyoffi ci al s haveS ect i on 5 o f t he o rdi nan ce prov i des: 12 T he C i t ys hal l appr ove the i s s uance of a l i cens e unl es s one orm or e of t he fol l ow i ng i s found bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t o be true: 1. A n appl i canti s l es s than ei ght een ( 18) y ear s of age . 2. A n appl i canthas fail ed t o pr ovi de i nform at i on as r equi r ed by S ect i o n 4 [ d e a l i ng w i t h the i nfo rm at i on t o b e i ncluded i n the l i cense appl i cat i on] fori s s uance of a l i cens e orhas fal s el yans w er ed a que s t i on o rr e q u e s tfo ri n fo r ma t i o n o n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n fo r m. 3. T he l i cens e appl i cat i on fee r equi r ed bythi s C hapt erhas notbeen pai d. 4. A n app li ca ti on has been c onvi ct ed of a s peci fi ed cr i m i nal act i vi t y , as defi ned i n t hi s or di nance , orhas b ee n s how n t o have comm i t t ed a vi ol at i on of Sect i on 7( A ) [perm i tt ing ins pect i ons ] or S ec ti on 10( B ) [l i cens e r evoca t i ons ] of thi s O r di nance w i thi n the p rev iou s y ea r. 5. I n t he cas e of a sexua l l y or i ent ed bus i nes s l i cens e appl i cat i on, t he pr emi s es i s noti n compl i ance w i th the i nt er iorconfi gur at i on req u ir em en ts of

this C h ap ter. A n SO B empl oy ee l i cens e i s r evi ew ed undert he s ame cr i t er i a, exce ptforw hether t he b usi ness com pli es w i t h the i nter i or confi gu rat i on requi rem ents . - 23 - no di s cr et i on overw hethert o gr antordenyan SO B l i cens e appl i cat i on— a t empora r yl i cens e “s hal l i m m edi at el yi s s ue” upon the fi l i ng of an a ppl i cat i on, and a perm anentl i cens e “s hal l [be] i s s ue[d] ” w i thi n for tyday s of the fi l i ng of the
a p p lica tio n u n les s so m e sp e c ifica lly e n u m e ra ted c riter io n is n o t m e t. T h e C ity 12
m ays eek t o r equi r e D r . J ohn’ s t o oper at e underan SO B l i cens e r athert han under a gene r al bus i nes s l i cens e, butnot hi ng i n i t s l i cens i ng s tructur e gi ves i tt heT he or di nance pr ovi des t hatappl i cat i on fee s s hal l notexce ed $200 foran 13 SO B l i cens e and $100 foran SO B empl oy ee l i cens e and thatannual r enew al fee s s h a ll n o t e x c e e d $ 1 0 0 fo r a n S O B lic e n s e a n d $ 5 0 fo r a n S O B e m p lo y e e lic e n s e . T h e re co rd d o es n o t i n d icate p rec isel yw h at th e c u rren t fee s are o r w h ethe r th ere a re c o m p a ra b le fe e s re q u ir e d fo r a g e n e ra l b u s in e s s lic e n s e . - 24 - au tho ri tyto p rev en t D r. Jo h n ’s fro m d o ing b u sine ss at all . S o lon g as D r. Jo h n ’s is w ill in g to o p e ra te u n d e r a n S O B lice n se a n d to c o m p lyw ith its ter m s, th e C ity has no author i t yt o r es t r ai n i t s bus i nes s oper at i ons ori t s s peec h. A r guabl y , i f the t erm s of the SO B l i cens e w er e s o oner ous thatthey effect i vel yw oul d pr ecl ude D r . J ohn’ s fr om oper at i ng atal l , w e mi ghthave a d iffe re n t situ a tio n . B u t th a t is n o t th e c a se . T h e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th a t [t ] he onl yappar entaddi t i onal burde n s im p os ed on D oct orJ ohn’ s ar e a so m e w h a t ex ten d e d a p p lica tio n p ro c e ss (d u rin g w h ich it i s f re e to r emai n i n bus i nes s ) , a mi nor li m i t at i on on hour s of oper at i on, the requi rem ent t o p l ace s om e extr a l i gh t i ng on the ex t eri or of t he b usi ness, and the r equi r ementt o enfor ce a no l oi t er i ng pr ovi s i on. D oct orJ ohn’ s , I nc. v. C i t yof R oy , 333 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1178- 79 ( D . U t ah 2004) . W e al s o r ecogni ze thatt he or di nance pr ecl udes SO B ’ s fr om empl oy i ng any on e con vict ed o f cert ai n sex-r el at ed cri m es and im po ses cert ai n fee s. 13 H o w e v e r, th e se b u rd e n s a re n o t so g re a t as to g ra n t th e C ity“ su b sta n tial p o w e r to d isc rim in a te” o r “ su p p re ss [ ] d isfa v o re d sp e e c h ” b yd e e m in g a b u sin e ss to fa ll i n t he ca t egoryof an SO B . E ven i f thos e condi t i ons ar e di s advant ageous , t heydo
n o t co n stitu te a p rio r re stra in t o n sp e e c h b e c a u se th e ya re n o t so o n e ro u s a s to pr eventD r . J ohn’ s fr om oper at i ng underan SO B l i cens e w hi l e i tl i t i gat es w hetherT h e C ity ’s a tto rn e ysta ted a t O ra l A rg u m e n t th a t D r. Jo h n ’s c o u ld a p p ly 14 fo r a g en era l bu sine ss li ce n se (w h ich th e C ityw o u ld d en y ) an d then D r. Jo h n ’s c o u ld a p p e a l th is d e n ial. - 25 - it s h o u ld , in s te a d , re c e iv e a g e n e ra l b u s in e s s lic e n s e . 2. Judi ci al revi ew D r . J ohn’ s al s o cont ends t hati ti s “effec t i vel ydeni ed j udi ci al r evi ew ” of t he C i t y ’ s deci s i on t hati tqual i fi es as an SO B beca us e i tcannotobt ai n r evi ew of th e C ity ’s d e c isio n u n les s it a p p lies fo r su c h a lice n se , w h ich it d o e s n o t w ish to do. T hi s ar gum entm i s appr ehends t he l aw r egar di ng j udi ci al r evi ew and pr i or r es t r ai nt . Pr om ptj udi ci al r evi ew i s r el evantt o the ques t i on of pr i orr es tr ai nt beca us e a l i cens i ng s cheme w i t h no l i m i ton the t i m e t o deci de mat t er s affect i ng t he l i cens e “‘ r i s k[s ] . . . i ndefi ni t el ys uppr es s i ng s peec h. ’ ” Ess ence , I nc. , 285 F . 3 d at 12 9 0 (qu o ti n g F W /PB S , 4 9 3 U . S . at 22 6 ). In o ther w o rds, th e c o n ce rn evi dence d bypr i orr es t r ai ntcas es i s t hata partyw i l l have t o r efr ai n fr om s peaki ng w hi l e i tw ai t s fora dec i s i on fr om t he l i cens i ng author i ty . H er e, as p o i n t e d o u ta b o v e , Dr . J o h n ’ s c a n , i f i twi s h e s , i mm e d i a t e l yo p e r a t e u n d e ra n S OB l i c e n s e w h i l e i tl i t i g a t e s w h e t h e ri tq u a l i fi e s fo ra g e n e r a l b u s i n e s s l i c e n s e . We 14
s ee no ba s i s her e t o s us t ai n an att ack on thi s l i cens i ng s cheme bas ed upon the j ud i ci al revi ew proced ures avai l able t o D r. John ’s . S ee C i tyof L i t t l et on v. Z . J. G i ft s , L . L . C . , 541 U . S. 774, 777, 784 ( 2004) ( uphol di ng a s i m i l arl i cens i ng p ro v is io n a g a in s t a p ri o r r e s tr a in t/ ju d ic ia l r e v ie w c h a lle n g e ).A t th e o u tseto f it s “T im e/P lace /M an n er” arg u m en t on ap p ea l, D r. Jo h n ’s 15 appea r s t o conce de thatt he or di nance i s pr oper l yanal y zed a s a cont ent - neutr al law . H o w ev er, i t l ater cit es A x so n -F lyn n v . Jo h n so n , 3 5 6 F . 3 d 1 2 7 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), a c ase inv o lving reli g iou s d iscri m ination , an d arg u es th at “the C ity ’s d e c isio n s h e re w e re m a d e in a n e ffo rt to im p o se u n law f u l ce n so rsh ip .” F u rth e r, in it s rep lyb ri ef, D r. Jo h n ’s arg u es th at, b ec au se th e o rdin an ce arg u ab lyinclu d es D r. Jo h n ’s in its a m b it, a n d b e c a u se D r. Jo h n ’s “ se lls o n lya m in o rityo f a d u lt m at er i al s , and ca t er s heavi l yt o w om en, ” the or di nance i s i n fac tcont ent - bas ed an d thu s sh o u ld b e su bject t o str ictscru ti n y . A s n o ted a b o v e, th ese arg u m en ts are fo re c lo se d b ya lo n g lin e o f p re c e d e n t fin d in g S O B o rd in a n c e s to b e c o n ten tn e u tra l re g u latio n s. S e e , e.g ., Z .J. G if ts D -2 , 1 3 6 F .3 d a t 6 8 7 (“ ‘W ith re sp e c t to b u sin e ss e s th a t p u rv e yse x u a llye x p licit m a ter ials , zo n in g o rd in a n c e s d e sig n e d to c o m b a t th e u n d e s ir a b le s e c o n d a ry e ffe c ts o f s u c h b u s in e s s e s a re . . . “ c o n ten t-n e u tra l.”’” ) (q u o tin g C ityo f R e n to n , 4 7 5 U .S . at 4 9 ) (e m p h a sis in o ri g inal) (alt era ti o n s o m itted). - 26 - C . T i m e/ P l ace/ M anner I n C i t yof R ent on v. Pl ayt i m e Theatr es , I nc. , 475 U . S. 41 ( 1986) , t he S u p rem e C o u rtestab li sh ed that o rdin an ce s targe ti n g the s o -ca ll ed “se co n d ary effect s ” of a dul tbus i nes s es ar e ana l y zed a s r egul at i ons ai m ed att he t i m e, pl ace , and mannerof s peec h. I d. at46. Such a r egul at i on w i l l be uphel d i f i ti s cont ent
n e u tra l, “n a rro w lytailo re d to se rv e a sig n ifica n t g o v e rn m e n tal in ter e st,” a n d if it “l eave s open ampl e al t ernat i ve cha nnel s of comm uni cat i on. ” Z. J . G i ft s D - 2, L . L . C . v . C ityo f A u rora , 1 3 6 F . 3 d 6 8 3 , 6 8 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). R o yC ity ’s
or di nance w as enac t ed t o pr ot ectagai ns tnegat i ve s econda ryeffect s and thus
m ee ts th e “ co n tent-ne u tr al” p ron g . S ee , e.g., id. at6 8 6 -87 . F u rth er, D r. Jo h n ’s 15 does notar gue thatt he or di nance fai l s t o l eave open al t ernat i ve means of
c o m m u n ica tio n ; th u s, th e o n lyq u e stio n o n a p p e a l is w h e th e r th e o rd in a n c e is- 27 -

n a rr o w ly ta ilo re d to s e rv e a s ig n ific a n t g o v e rn m e n t in te re s t. It is w e ll es tab lish e d th a t co m b a tin g th e se c o n d a rye ffe c ts o f a d u lt bus i nes s es i s a “s i gni fi cantgovernm ent al i nt er es t . ” See, e. g. , C i tyof R ent on, 475 U . S. at50; Z . J . G i ft s D - 2, 136 F. 3d at688. D r . J ohn’ s does notchal l enge that pr i nci pl e, butr athercont ends i ti s s i m pl ynotthe ki nd of adul tbus i nes s thatcan b e th o u g h t to p ro d u c e n e g a tiv e s e c o n d a ry e ffe c ts . Speci fi cal l y , D r . J ohn’ s ar gues t hatt he s tudi es ci t ed i n s uppor tof the R oyC i tyor di nance do notcons i der bus i nes s es ( l i ke D r . J ohn’ s ) t hats el l m at er i al s onl yforoff- s i t e cons um pt i on, carr yonl ya “s m al l amount of adul tvi deos ” al ong w i th “a s ubs t ant i al i nvent or yof g e n e ra l m e rc h a n d is e ,” a n d h a v e a c lie n te le th a t is 4 0 % w o m e n . I n or dert o s how t hata cha l l enged or di nance pr om ot es a s i gni fi cant governm enti nt er es t , “the governm entbear s t he bur den of pr ovi di ng evi dence of
s econda r yeffect s , w her e i tr el i es on thos e s econda ryeffect s as t he j us t i fi cat i on fo r r e s tr ic tin g s p e e c h .” H e id e m a n v . S . S a lt L a k e C ity, 3 4 8 F .3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 9 7 n .8 ( 10 t h Ci r . 20 03 ) ( c i t i ng Ci t yof Los A ng e l e s v. A l a meda Books , I nc . , 53 5 U. S. 4 2 5 , 4 3 7 (20 0 2 ) (plura li ty )). In H eide m an , w e c an v asse d the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s
s econda r yeffect s deci s i ons and out l i ned the bas i c pr i nci pl es fordet erm i ni ng w hethert hi s bur den has been met . Fi r s t , w e not ed that , i n C i tyof R ent on, t he Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed anyar gum entt hatci t i es m us t“‘ conductnew s tudi es or pr oduce e vi dence i ndepende ntof thatal r eadygener at ed byotherci t i es , ’ ” and- 28 -

a ffirm e d th a t th e c itym a yre lyo n e v id e n c e “ ‘re a so n a b lyb e liev e d to b e re lev a n t to t he pr obl em t he ci t yaddr es s es . ’ ” 348 F. 3d at1197 ( quot i ng C i tyof R ent on, 475 U . S. at51- 52) . T hen, aft erdi s cus s i ng s ever al otherdeci s i ons , w e undert ook a t hor ough anal y s i s of the C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n A l ameda B ooks , w hi ch s ought t o “cl ar i fyt he s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng w hetheran or di nance s erves a s ubs t ant i al governm enti nt er es tunderC i t yof R ent on. ” W e expl ai ned: T he [four - m ember ] pl ur al i tydi s t i nguishe d betw een tw o part s of the R e n to n in ter m e d iate sc ru tin yf ra m e w o rk : w h e th e r a n o rd in a n c e is con t ent- neu t ral and w hether i t serves a subst anti al go vernm ental i nter est w h ile le a v in g o p e n a ltern a ti v e a v e n u e s o f c o m m u n ica tio n . O n lyw ith r egar d t o t he l at t er w oul d the court s “exa m i ne evi dence conce rni ng r egul at ed s peec h and s econda ryeffect s . ” E ven as t o t hatconnec t i on, the pl ur al i tyr ei t er at ed thatthe C o ur thad “refused t o setsuch a h i gh bar for m un i ci paliti es that w ant t o ad dress m er el yt he s econda r yeffect s of pr ot ect ed s peec h. ” I ts tat ed that ci t i es ar e ent i t l ed t o r el y , i n part , on “appe al t o comm on s ens e, ” r atherthan “empi r i cal dat a, ” atl eas tw her e ther e i s no “ac tual and co n v i nci ng evi dence fr om pl ai nt i ffs t o the contr ary . ” I n s o hol ding , the A l ameda pl ur al i t ypr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng obs ervat i o n regar di ng the defer ence pr oper l y acc or ded t o l egi s l at i ve fi ndi ngs underthe s econd pr ong of the [ U n ited S tate s v .] O ’B rie n [ , 3 9 1 U .S . 3 6 7 (1 9 6 8 )] te st: T h is i s n o t to sa y th a t th e m u n icip a lity c a n g e t a w a y w ith s hoddydat a orr easoni ng. T he muni ci pal i ty ’ s evi dence m u st fa irlysu p p o rt th e m u n icip a lity ’s r a tio n a le fo r its o rd in a n c e . If

p lain tiffs fa il t o c a st d ire c t d o u b t o n th is rati o n ale, eith er b yd em o n str ati n g th at th e m u n ici p ali ty ’s evi dence does nots uppor ti t s r at i onal e orbyfurni s hi ng evidence that dis pu t es the m un i ci pali ty ’s factual fi nd i ng s, the m u n ici p ali ty m ee ts the s tand ard set fo rth in R en ton . If p l a i n t i ffs s u c c e e d i n c a s t i n g d o u b to n a m u n i c i p a l i ty's r at i onal e i n ei t herm anner , the bur den s h ift s back t o the m uni ci pal it y to s uppl ementthe r ecor d w i th evi denceJu sti ce K en n ed yco n cu rred , b u t “did n o t cri ti cize the p lurali ty ’s 16 a p p ro a c h .” H e id e m a n , 3 4 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 9 . T h e R o yC ityO rdin an ce cit ed stud ies fro m P h o en ix, A Z (19 8 4 ); 17 M i n n e a p o l i s , M N ( 1 9 8 0 ) ; Ho u s t o n , T X ( 1 9 9 7 ) ; Ut a h p o l i s , UT ; Am a r i l l o , T X; G ar den G r ove, C A ( 1991) ; L os A ngel es , C A ( 1977) ; W hi t t i er , C A ( 1978) ; A us t i n, T X ( 1986) ; Seat t l e, W A ( 1989) ; O kl ahoma C i ty , O K ( 1986) ; C l evel and, O H and D all as, T X (19 9 7 ); S t. C roix C o . , W I (19 9 3 ); B ell v u e, W A (19 9 8 ); N ew p o rt N ew s , V A ( 1996) ; and Phoeni x, A Z ( 1995- 98) . I n Z . J . G i ft s D - 2, t he t ow n ci t ed stud i es fr om G arden G rove, C A ; A ust i n, T X ; O klahom a C i ty , O K ; Indi anap oli s, IN ; M in n e a p o lis , M N ; W h ittie r, C A ; a n d A m a ri llo , T X . 1 3 6 F .3 d a t 6 8 7 n .1 . - 29 - r enew i ng s uppor tfora theorythatj us t i fi es i t s or di nance . I d. at1199 ( quot i ng A l ameda B ooks , 535 U . S. at438- 41) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) (em p h ase s ad d ed ). 16 H er e, t he s tudi es ci t ed byR oyC i tycert ai nl yfi tH ei deman’ s des cr i pt i on of “pr e- packa ged”— as t he C i t yacknow l edges , m anyof the s tudi es ar e the s ame as t hos e r el i ed upon byt he ci t yof A ur or a i n Z . J . G i ft s D - 2. D r . J ohn’ s ar gues t hat 17 “comm on s ens e s how s ” thatt hes e s tudi es ar e notr el evantt o an adul tbus i nes s l i ke D r. J o h n ’s . H ow ever, si m plyst at i ng t hat i ti s a “di fferentkind” of adu l tbu si ness i s not , byi t s el f, s uffi ci entt o “ca s tdi r ectdoubt ” on the r at i onal e under l y i ng the C ity ’s o rd in a n c e . H e id e m a n , 3 4 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 9 (“ [ C ]ities a re e n tit led to re ly , in par t , on ‘ appea l t o comm on s ens e, ’ . . . atl eas tw her e ther e i s no actual and
con vinci ng evidence from plai nti ffs t o the con trary . ”) ( em ph asi s added ); cf. Z . J. G if ts D -2 , 1 3 6 F .3 d a t 6 9 0 (“ [ E ]v e n if [ th e a p p e llan t] is a n e w typ e o f a d u lt bus i nes s , i tm aynotavoi d t i m e, pl ace and mannerr egul at i on thathas beenD r. Jo h n ’s m a k e s m u c h o f th e fa c t th a t th e R o yC ityo rd in a n c e p u rp o rts to 18 r el yon a s tudyof “U t ahpol i s , ” ar gui ng thatt he “i ncl us i on of a r eportfr om a nonexi s t entci t yr ai s es s er i ous ques t i ons as t o the r eas onabl e r el i ance byt he ci tyon” th e stu d ies c ites in th e o rd in a n c e ’s p re a m b le. T h e C ityre sp o n d s th a t th is r efe r ence w as a typogr aphi cal err or , and thati ti nt ended t o r efe r ence a s tudyof I ndi anapol i s , I ndi ana. I n anyevent , w e have r ecogni zed thatci t i es do and may rel yon “seem i ng l ypre- pack aged stud i es” t o sup po rtadu l tbu si ness ordi nan ces, H ei deman, 348 F. 3d at1197; t he exi s t ence of an e rr ori n the l i s t i ng of thes e pr ep a c k a g e d stu d ies d o e s n o t ca rrym u c h w e ig h t. - 30 - j us t i fi ed bys tudi es of the s econda ryeffect s of r eas onabl ys i m i l arbus i nes s es . ”) ( emphasi s added) . T hus , w i t houtm or e, the C i ty ’ s r el i ance on the “pa ckage ” of
s tudi es comm onl yi nvoked t o j us t i fySO B or di nance s i s qui t e perm i s s i bl e t o m eet th e C ity ’s s lig h t in iti a l b u rd e n , ev e n if th e stu d ies d o n o t ad d re ss S O B ’s p re c ise ly l i ke D r . J ohn’ s . A l ameda B ooks , 535 U . S. at438 ( “[A ] m uni ci pal i tym ayr el yon a n ye v id e n c e th a t is “ re a s o n a b ly b e lie v e d to b e re le v a n t” ); id . a t 4 5 1 (K e n n e d y , J ., co n cu rri n g ) (no ti n g that “v eryli tt le ev iden ce is r eq u ir ed ” to s ati sfycity ’s t hr es hol d bur den) ; s ee al s o C i t y of R ent on, 475 U . S. at 51- 52. 18 D r. John ’s m akes t w o argum ents bey on d it s basi c con t enti on t hat i ti s a di ffe r entki nd of SO B . Fi r s t , i tcl ai m s t hatt he or di nance i s notnarr ow l yt ai l or ed t o s erve a s i gni fi cantgovernm enti nt er es tbeca us e i tfai l s t o m ake a di s t i nct i on betw een bus i nes s es w hi ch have ent er t ai nm enton the pr emi s es ( “on- s i t e” bus i nes s es ) and thos e w hi ch r equi r e cus t om er s t o l eave t he pr emi s es t o vi ew or u s e th e irp u rc h a s e s (“ o ff-s ite ” b u s in e s s e s ). N ex t, itarg u es th at i t has p u t fo rw ard evi dence s uffi ci entt o cal l t he C i ty ’ s r at i onal e i nt o ques t i on and thus i nvoke theD r. John ’s al so argues t hat the o rdi nan ce i s not narrow l yt ai l ored be cause 19 i t s defi ni t i on of an SO B i s t oo br oad, ci t i ng E xecut i ve A r t s Studi o, I nc. v. C i t yof G r and R api ds , 391 F. 3d 783 ( 6t h C i r . 2004) and D r . J ohn’ s , I nc. v. C i tyof Si oux C i t y , 305 F. Supp. 2d 1022 ( N . D . I ow a 2004) . H ow ever , both of thos e ca s es inv o lved S O B o rdin an ce s w ith su b stan ti all yb roa d er d efinit ion s o f a n S O B . In E xecut i ve A r t s Studi o, an SO B w as anybus i nes s w i th a “s egmentors ect i on” of its sto re d e v o ted to a d u lt m a ter ial, w h ich th e c o u rt n o ted “ e n c o m p a ss e s m u lti p le es t abl i s hm ent s w hi ch w oul d neverbe def i ned as adul tbooks t or es i n every day E n g lish , su c h a s a W a ld e n ' s o r B o rd e rs [ b o o k sto re ].” 3 9 1 F .3 d a t 7 9 6 . A n d in Si oux C i t y , t he or di nance w as w r i t t en s o that“a bus i nes s s el l i ng anyi t em of ‘ adul tm edi a’ and anyi t em of ‘l i nger i e’ w oul d qual i fyas a ‘ s ex s hop’ . . . . ” 305 F. Supp. 2d at1036. T hes e or di nance s ar e fa rdi ffe r entfr om R oyC i ty ’ s , w hi ch o n ly ap p lie s to s to re s w ith a “ s ig n ific a n t o r s u b s ta n tia l” p o rt io n o f a d u lt m a te ri a l. W e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe R oyC i tyor di nance i s s o br oad. T he Fi fth C i r cui tr eas oned that 20 [ o ]ff-site b u sin e ss e s d iffe r f ro m o n -site o n e s, b e c a u se it i s o n ly r eas onab le to as s um e thatt he form erar e l es s l i kel yt o cr eat e harm ful s econda r yeffect s . I f cons um er s of pornogr aphycannotvi ew the m a ter ia ls a t th e se x u a llyo rie n ted e sta b lish m e n t, th e ya re les s lik e lyto l i nge r i n t h e a r e a a n d e n g a g e i n p u b l i c a l c o h o l c o n s u mpt i o n a n d ot her u n d e s ir a b le a c tiv itie s . (continued...) - 31 - A l ameda B ooks bur den- s hi ft i ng s cheme. W e cons i derthes e ar gum ent s i n turn. 19 1. O n- s i t e ver s us off- s i t e busi nes s es D r. John ’s pri m ari l yrel i es on the F i ft h C i rcui t ’s decis i on i n E nco re V i deo s, Inc . v . C ityo f S an A n ton io, 33 0 F . 3 d 2 8 8 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In th at ca se, th e c o u rt hel d t hatan or di nance w hi ch r egul at ed both on- s i t e and off- s i t e adul tbus i nes s es w a s n o t n a rro w lytailo re d b e c a u se th e C ityfa iled , as a th re sh o ld m a tter, to pr ovi de evi dence t hatoff- s i t e bus i nes s es caus ed nega t i ve s econda ryeffect s . I d. at 294- 95. 20(...continued) 20 I d. at295. W e first rejec ted th e a rg u m e n t th a t re lian c e o n stu d ies o f “ slig h tly 21 d iss im ilar b u sin e ss e s” (e .g ., stu d ies th a t m a yh a v e fo c u se d o n lyo n o n -site bus i nes s es w hen the or di nance al s o r egul at ed off
- s i t e bus i nes s es ) m ade a ny di ffe r ence t o t he ques t i on of w hethert he or di nance w as “cont entneutr al . ” 136 F .3 d a t 6 8 7 (“ [ D ]iffe re n c e s in th e m o d e o f d e liv e ryo f

se x u a llyo rie n ted m a ter ials are co n sti tuti o n all yinsign ifi ca n t fo r pu rpo ses o f d eterm ining an o rdin an ce ’s co n tent-ne u tr ali ty . ”). - 32 - H o w e v e r, a s th e d istric t c o u rt n o ted , an d a s E n c o re V id e o s s p e c ifica lly acknow l edges , s ee i d. at295, t hi s ci r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n Z . J . G i ft s D - 2 r ej ect ed the
on -s i t e/ off-s i t e dis t i ncti on as a basi s for s tri king do w n an adu l tbu si ness or di nance as an uncons t i tut i onal t i m e/pl ace / m annerr es tr i ct i on. I n det erm i ni ng w hethert he Z. J . G i ft s D - 2 or di nance w as narr ow l yt ai l or ed t ow ar ds a s i gni fi cant i nt er es t , w e bega n byfi ndi ng t hatt he governm ent ’ s i nt er es ti n pr event i ng

21
s econda r yeffect s w as notaffect ed byt he fa ctt hatt he bus i nes s es i tr egul at ed i ncl uded off
- s i t e adul tbus i nes s es . 136 F. 3d at688. W e then cons i der ed the pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum entt hatt he pr ovi s i on w as notnarr ow l yt ai l or ed. W e r ecogni zed t hat , al t hough “t i m e, pl ace orm annerr egul at i ons on pr ot ect ed s peec h m us tbe
narr ow l yt ai l or ed, ” they“‘ need notbe the l eas tr es tr i ct i ve orl eas ti ntrus i ve means of doi ng s o. ’ ” I d. at689 ( quot i ng W ar d v. R ock A gai ns tR aci s m , 491 U . S. 781, 798 ( 1989) ) . T hi s pr i nci pl e r ecogni zes t he j udi ci ary ’ s l i m i t ed ro l e i n r evi ew i ng cont ent - neutr al l i m i t at i ons on s peec h. “Iti s not[the court ’ s ] funct i on t o appr ai s e the- 33 -

w is d o m o f

[ th e c ity’ s ] d e c is io n [ .]” R e n to n , 4 7 5 U .S . a t 5 2 . . . . In ste a d , b e c a u se leg isla tiv e b o d ies a re e n tit led to “ re a so n a b le i nfer ence s ” s ugges t ed bythe l egi s l at i v e recor d befor e them, . . . the c o u rt sim p ly d e ter m in e s w h e th e r th e o rd in a n c e , as p ro m u lg a ted , “a ffe c ts on l ycat ego ri es of b usi nesses r easona blybeli e v e d t o p roduce atl east s om e of the unw ant ed s econda ryeffe ct s ” the ci tys eeks t o r egul at e. IL Q In v e stm e n ts[ , In c . v . C ityo f R o c h e ste r], 2 5 F .3 d [ 1 4 1 3 ,] 1 4 1 8 [ (8 th C i r . 1994) ] . I f s o, t he court ’ s r evi ew i s compl et e, and i tm aynot s ubs ti tute i t s ow n j udgm entfort hatof the l egi s l atur e, us urpi ng the l egi s l at i ve body ’ s pol i cy - m aki ng funct i on. I d. G i ven thatt he ci t y ’ s or di nance “d[i d] notatt empt t o r egul at e bus i nes s es w hi ch have a mi ni m al ornonexi s t entconnec t i on t o s exual l yor i ent ed ent er t ai nm ent , ” and thatt he ci t ydi d not“s eek t o j us t i fyi t s act i ons w i th a
c o m p lete lyb a rre n leg isla tiv e re c o rd ,” w e fo u n d th e o rd in a n c e su fficie n tly
n a rr o w ly ta ilo re d to th e c ity’s c o n c e rn o v e r s e c o n d a ry e ffe c ts . Id . a t 6 8 9 -9 0 . W e concl uded bynot i ng t hat“eve n i f [the adul tbus i nes s i n ques t i on] i s ‘ a new type of adul tbus i nes s , [i . e. , one thatpr ovi des onl yoff- s i t e adul tm at er i al ] , i tm aynot avoi d [a] t i m e, pl ace and mannerr egul at i on thathas been j us t i fi ed bys tudi es of t h e s e c o n d a r ye ffe c t s o f r e a s o n a b l ys i mi l a rb u s i n e s s e s . ’ ” I d . ( q u o t i n g I LQ I nves t m ent s , 25 F. 3d at1418) . T hus , underZ . J . G i ft s D - 2, the mer e fa ctthatthe
o rd in a n c e re a c h e s o ff-site a s w e ll as o n -site b u sin e ss e s is in su fficie n t fo r u s to d e c lar e th e o rd in a n c e u n c o n stitu tio n a l. D r. Jo h n ’s a rg u e s th a t, ev e n if Z .J. G if ts D -2 w a s c o rre c t w h e n d e c id e d , it

“ n e e d s to b e re -e x a m in e d in lig h t o f” A la m e d a B o o k s . T o th e e x ten t th a t th is is
an ar gum entt hatA l ameda B ooks al t er s t he i ni t i al bur den thatt he C i tym us tm eet- 34 -

t o j us t i fyt he or di nance — i . e. , t hatthe C i tym us t , as a thr es hol d m at t er , pr es ent s p e c i fi c e v i d e n c e o f

s e c o n d a r ye ffe c t s c a u s e d b yo ff
- s i t e b u s i n e s s e s — we d isa g re e . A lam e d a B o o k s re itera ted th a t a c ityd o e s n o t fa c e a “ h ig h b a r” in
m eet i ng i t s i nit i al ob l i gati on t o sho w an o rdi nan ce i s narr ow l yt ai l ored t ow ards a sig n ifica n t in ter e st; it n e e d o n lysh o w th a t it s e v id e n c e “ fa irlysu p p o rt[ s]” its
r at i onal e. 535 U . S. at438; s ee a l s o i d. at451 ( K ennedy , J . , concurr i ng) ( not i ng th a t “ v e ry little e v id e n c e is re q u ir e d ” to ju s tif ya s e c o n d a ry e ffe c ts o rd in a n c e ). T h u s, ev en af

ter A lam ed a B o o k s, o u r disag ree m en t w ith the F ifth C ir cu it ’s th eo ry that ev iden ce o f a sp ec ifi c c o n n ec ti o n b etw ee n o ff-si te bu sine sses an d sec o n d ary effects i s necessaryatt he o uts etst i l l st and s. H o w e v e r, w e a g re e w ith D r. Jo h n ’s to th e e x ten t itis a rg u in g th a t a di s t i nct i on betw een on- s i t e and off- s i t e bus i nes s es m i ghtbe r el evanti n the A l ameda B ooks bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k. I ndeed, thi s concl us i on i s not i ncons i s t entw i t h ourhol di ng i n Z . J . G i ft s D - 2. I n thatcas e, w e s peci fi cal l ynot ed t hatt he i nqui r yi nt o w hethert he s tudi es us ed t o s uppor ta ci ty ’ s or di nance addr es s ed di s s i m i l arbus i nes s es “mayw el l be r el evanti n det erm i ni ng w hethert he
or di nance i s ‘ narr ow l yt ai l or ed t o r egul at e onl ythos e adul tus es s how n t o have
c a u s e d a d v e r s e s e c o n d a r ye ffe c t s ’ u n d e rRe n t o n . ” 1 3 6 F. 3 d a t6 8 7 ( q u o t i n g I LQ I nves t m ent s , 25 F. 3d at1417) . Fur ther , though w e s peci fi cal l ychar act er i zed the
on- s i t e/ off- s i t e di s t i nct i on as “cons t i tut i onal l yi ns i gni fi cant ” t o the ques t i on of- 35 -

cont entneutr al i t yand “c ons t i tut i onal l yi rr el evant ” t o the ques t i on of the governm ent ’ s i nt er es t , w e not abl ydi d notm ake a nys uch s w eepi ng s t at ement aboutt he r el evanc e of the di s t i nct i on t o the ques t i on of narr ow t ai l or i ng. R eadi ng Z .J. G if ts D -2 to g e th e r w ith A lam e d a B o o k s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t, alth o u g h a c ity need noti ni t i al l ycome for w ar d w i th s peci fi c evi dence of a c onnect i on betw een n e g a tiv e se c o n d a rye ffe c ts a n d e a c h p re c ise typ e o f b u sin e ss re g u late d u n d e r its
or di nance , a pl ai nt i ff maybe abl e t o chal l enge a ci ty ’ s r at i onal e fori t s or di nance b yp o in tin g to e v id e n c e th a t it s typ e o f a d u lt b u sin e ss (e .g ., “ o ff-site ” ) is
r el evant l ydi ffe r entt han thos e types of bus i nes s es anal y zed i n the s tudi es s u p p o rt in g th e o rd in a n c e (e .g ., “ o n -s ite ” ). He r e , h o we v e r , Dr . J o h n ’ s p o i n t s t o n o e v i d e n c e s h o wi n g th a to ff
- s i t e S OBs have mat er i al l ydi ffe r ents econda ryeffect s thatw oul d cal l i nt o ques t i on the stud ies reli ed u p o n b yR o yC ity . S im p lystat ing that o ff-si te bu sine sses are di ffe r entfr om on- s i t e bus i nes s es i s nots uffi ci entt o s hi ftthe bur den bac k t o the ci t y . W e ow e “de fer ence t o t he evi dence pr es ent ed bythe ci ty ” due t o the fa ct th a t citie s a re “ in a b e tter p o sitio n th a n th e Ju d icia ryto g a th e r a n d e v a lu a te d a ta on l ocal pr obl ems. ” A l ameda B ooks , 535 U . S. at440; s ee a l s o i d. at451 ( K ennedy , J . , concurr i ng) ( “A s a gene r al m at t er , cour t s s houl d notbe i n the b u s in e s s o f

s e c o n d -g u e s s in g fa c t- b o u n d e m p ir ic a l a s s e s s m e n ts o f c ity p la n n e rs .” ).- 36 -

T hu s, D r. John ’s argum ent concerni ng on -s i t e and off-s i t e bu si nesses fai l s t o “cast di r ectdoubt ” on the C i t y ’ s r at i onal e. 2. D r. John’s evi dence D r. Jo h n ’s po ints t o ev iden ce that itclaim s “p u ts i n to q u esti o n ” the C ity ’s stud ies an d , thu s, the C ity ’s rati o n ale fo r reg u lat ing ad u ltb u sine sses li k e D r. J ohn’ s . Speci fi cal l y , D r . J ohn’ s poi nt s t o tw o art i cl es : T he fi r s tart i cl e cr i t i ci zes th e m e th o d o lo g yu s e d in th e m o s t f re q u e n tly c ite d s e c o n d a ry e ffe c ts s tu d ie s . B r y antPaul , D ani el L i nz, and B r adl eyJ . Shafer , G overnm entR egul at i on of “A dul t ” B us i nes s es T hr ough Z oni ng and A nt i
- N udi tyO r di nance s : D ebunki ng t he L e g a l M yth o f

N e g a tiv e S e c o n d a ry E ffe c ts , 6 C o m m . L . & P o l’ y3 5 5 , 3 6 7 (2 0 0 1 ). T he s econd a r t i cl e foc us es on ci t i es ’ zoni ng of “unpopul ar ” chur ches and cont ends t hatci t i es ar e us i ng zoni ng t o r es tr i cta r el i gi ous m es s age unde rt he gui s e of “ s econda r yeffect s ”— a t act i c D r . J ohn’ s cont ends i s al s o us ed i n the adul tent er t ai nm entcont ext . V on G . K eet ch & M at thew K . R i char ds , T he N eed fo r L e g isla tio n to E n sh rin e F re e E x e rc ise in th e L a n d U se C o n tex t, 32 U .C . D a v is L . R ev . 7 2 5 (19 9 9 ). T h ese arti cles w ere su b m itted a s p art of D r. Jo h n ’s rep lyto the C ity ’s resp o n se to D r. Jo h n ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. O u r rev iew o f th e re co rd le a v e s u s in d o u b t a s to w h e th e r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a c tu a lly c o n s id e re d th e a rt ic le s . T he co urtm ade n o reference t o them i n it s orderdis po si ng of the part i es’ m oti on sT he di s t r i ctcourtdi d s t at e thatD r . J ohn’ s had notm ade “ anys er i ous 22 sh o w in g th a t th e stu d ies re lied u p o n b yth e C ityw e re n o t ap p ro p ria te.” T h is re fe re n c e to a “ sh o w in g ” d o e s n o t m a k e c lea r w h e th e r th e c o u rt w a s re fe rrin g to D r. Jo h n ’s a rg u m e n ts a b o u t th e C ity ’s s tu d ies o r to th e e v id e n c e it su b m itt e d to at t em pt t o co ntr adictt ho se stud i es. W e expr es s no opi ni on as t o w hether , i f the di s tr i ctcourtdi d i n fac t 23 ref u se to co n side r th e e v iden ce , su ch a d ec isi o n w as p rop er. T hat art i cl e, w hich purpo rt s t o h ave review ed 1 07 “secon daryeffects ” 24 report s ci t ed in supp ortof S O B ordi nan ces, con t end s that “the m et ho ds m ost f re q u e n tlyu se d in th e se stu d ies [ p u rp o rtin g to d e tec t se c o n d a rye ffe c ts f ro m a d u lt bus i nes s es ] ar e s er i ous l yand oft en fa t al l yfl aw ed. ” Paul , L i nz, Shafer , s upr a, at 3 6 7 -6 8 . F u rth e r, th e a rticle a ss e rts th a t th o se stu d ies th a t ar e sc ien tific a lly c re d ib le s h o w n o lin k b e tw e e n a d u lt b u s in e s s e s a n d s e c o n d a ry e ffe c ts . Id . a t 3 6 7 . A tl eas tone courthas ci t ed thi s art i cl e as cas t i ng doubton the “pr e- packa ged s tudi es ” r el i ed on byci t i es i n s uppor tof adul tbus i nes s or di nance s . G i ovani C ar andol a, L t d. v. Fox, 396 F. Supp. 2d 630, 651 ( M . D . N . C . 2005) ( not i ng that t he art i cl e, al ong w i t h L i nz’ s expertt es t i m ony , “ca s tdi r ectdoubt ” on the g o v ern m en t’ s stud ies). - 37 - fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t; it d id n o t affirm a tiv e lyin d ica te w h e th e r it re f u se d to 22
cons i dert hem (pe r haps as unt i m el y ) or , r ather , t hati thad cons i der ed them and had si m plycon cl ud ed theyw ere i nsuffi ci ent t o m eetD r. John ’s bu rden t o “cast dir ectdo ub t ” on t he C i t y ’s stud i es. 23 F u rth e r, o u r re v iew o f th e P a u l, L in z , an d S h a fe r a rticle su g g e sts th a t it
m ig h t ca st d o u b t o n th e C ity ’s e v id e n c e a n d ra tio n a le. W e c a n n o t co n c lu siv e ly 24 d eterm ine w h ethe r i t do es, ho w ev er, as w e d o n o t hav e the C ity ’s stu d ies b efo re u s. In a d d it ion , itis no t cl ea r fro m the re co rd w h ethe r all the C ity ’s stu d ies w ereI n i t s or derdi s pos i ng of the cr os s - m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent , t he 25 di s t r i ctcourts ay s onl yt hati thad r evi ew ed “the r eportof m anyof the s tudi es r el i ed upon byt he C i t y . ” - 38 - e v e n b e fo re th e d istric t c o u rt. G iv e n th a t th e re c o rd is u n c lea r a s to p re c ise ly 25
w hatevi dence w as cons i der ed byt he di s tr i ctcourt , and gi ven thata r evi ew of the p a rties ’ e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g a n d c o u n ter in g a c ity ’s r a tio n a le is e ss e n tial to det erm i ni ng w hetheran or di nance i s narr ow l yt ai l or ed t o the C i ty ’ s s ubs t ant i al i nt er es ti n pr event i ng s econda r yeffect s , s ee A l ameda B ooks , 535 U . S. at438- 39, w e conc l ude thatt he pr opercour s e i s t o r emand t hi s cas e t o al l ow t he di s t r i ct cour tt o conducta thor ough anal y s i s of the evi dence undert he A l ameda B ooks bur den- s hi ft i ng s cheme. See N el s on v. T i ffa nyI ndus . , I nc. , 778 F. 2d 533, 538 ( 9t h C i r . 1985) ( r ever s i ng s um m aryj udgm entand r emandi ng w her e i tw as not c lea r w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt c o n sid e re d e v id e n c e o n a “ c ritica l fa c tu a l issu e ” in g ran ti n g su m m aryjud g m en t) . S ee g en era ll y2 8 U . S . C . § 2 1 0 6 (“[ A ]ny. . . co u rt o f a p p e llate ju risd ictio n m a y. . . v a c a te, s e t as id e o r re v e rse a n yju d g m e n t, decr ee, oror derof a c our tl aw ful l ybr oughtbefor e i tforr evi ew , and mayr emand t he ca us e and . . . r equi r e s uch furtherpr ocee di ngs t o be had a s m aybe j us tunder the c ir cu m stan ce s. ”). D . C i vi l D i s abi l i t y P rovi s i on A s not ed, t he R oyC i t yor di nance pr ovi des t hatt he C i ty“s hal l ” gr antan SO B orSO B empl oy ee l i cens e appl i cat i on unl es s , i nt eral i a, t he appl i canthasT he or di nance defi nes “s peci fi ed cr i m i nal act i vi ty ” as anyof the 26 fol l ow i ng: pr os t i tut i on orpr om ot i on of pr os t i tut i on; di s s emi nat i on of obs ceni tyor ill e g a l p o rn o g ra p h y ; s a le, d istrib u tio n , o r d isp lay of h a rm f u l m a ter ial to a mi n o r ; s e x u a l p e r fo r ma n c e b y a c h i l d ; p o s s e s s i o n o r d i s tr i b ut i on of chi l d por nogr aphy ; l ew dnes s ; s exual batt ery ; r ape; indece ntexpos ur e; i ndece ncyw i t h a chi l d; engagi ng i n or gani zed cr i m i nal act i vi tyr el at i ng t o a s exual l yor i ent ed bus i nes s ; s exual as s aul t ; m ol es t at i o n o f a chi l d; ordi s t r i but i on of a c ont r ol l ed s u b st ance ; cr i m i nal att empt , cons pi r acy ors ol i ci t at ion to com m i tanyof the for egoi ng offe ns es oroffe ns es i nvol v ing the s ame el ement s fr om anyj ur i s di ct i on r egar dl es s of the exac tt i t l e of the offens e. T h e o ffe n s e s a r e o n l yc o n s i d e r e d “ s p e c i fi e d c r i mi n a l a c t i v i ty ” i f ( 1 ) l e s s t h a n t wo y ears hav e el apsed si nce co nv i ct i on or r el ease from con fi nem ent i f t he o ffen se w as a mi s demeanor ; ( 2) l es s t han fi ve y ear s have e l aps ed s i nce c onvi ct i on or release fro m co n fin em en t i f th e o ffen se w as a fe lon y ; or (3) less tha n fiv e y ea rs have e l aps ed s i nce the l as tconvi ct i on orr el eas e fr om confi nementi f the per s on w a s c o n v icte d o f

tw o o r m o re m isd e m e a n o rs w ith in a n ytw e n ty -fo u r-m o n th p e ri o d . H al t om has been c onvi ct ed i n N ebr as ka of di s tr i but i on of obs cene

27 m at er i al s , s ee St at e v. H al t om , 653 N . W . 2d 232, 235 ( N eb. 2002) , a convi ct i on t hatD r . J ohn’ s conce des qual i fi es as a “s peci fi ed cr i m i nal act i vi ty . ” H al t om w as al s o r ece nt l yconvi ct ed i n U t ah of de al i ng i n m at er i al harm ful t o m i nor s ; att he t i m e thi s appea l w as br i efe d, an appe al of thatconvi ct i on w as pendi ng. - 39 - been c onvi ct ed of a “s peci fi ed cr i m i nal act i vi ty ” w i thi n a s peci fi c t i m e per i od (w ith in the lasttw o y ea rs fo r a m isde m ea n o r; w ith in the lastfiv e y ea rs fo r a fe lo n yo r fo r tw o m isd e m e a n o rs in a tw e n ty -fo u r-m o n th p e rio d ) (th e “ c iv il di s abi l i t y ” pr ovi s i on) . H al t om , w ho has pr evi ous convi ct i ons forcr i m es w hi ch 26 di s qual i fyhi m undert he or di nance , chal l enges t hi s pr ovi s i on as an 27T h e d istric t co u rt c h a ra c ter ize d th is iss u e a s a c h a llen g e to th e c iv il 28 d i s a b i l i t yp r o v i s i o n i n s o fa ra s i tp r e c l u d e s Ha l t o m f r o m o b t a i n i n g a n S OB empl oy ee l i cens e. W e no t e t hat the o rdi nan ce al so app ears t o p recl ud e a bu si ness w ith a n “ o ffice r, d ire c to r, g e n e ra l p a rtn e r, o r o th e r p e rso n w h o w ill p a rticip a te di r ect l yi n deci s i ons r el at i ng t o m anage m entand contr ol of the bus i nes s ” fr om ob t ai ning an S O B l i cense w here on e of the afo rem enti on ed p ers on s has a di s qual i fy i ng convi ct i on. H ow ever , nei therD r . J ohn’ s norH al t om chal l enges t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s char act er i zat i on of the cl ai m . W e ther efor e onl ycons i dert he e ffe c to f t h e c i v i l d i s a b i l i t y p r o v i s i o n s o n H a l t o m p e r s o n a l l y. - 40 - un con st i tuti on al res t ri ct i on of h i s Fir stA m end m ent r i gh t s. 28 A s a th re sh o ld m a tter, w e m u st d e ter m in e w h a t lev e l o f sc ru tin yto a p p lyto t h i s c i v i l d i s a b i l i t y p r o v i s i o n . D r . J o h n ’ s u r g e s u s t o a p p l y a “ s tr i c ts c ru t i n y” anal y s i s , as t he pr ovi s i on “oper at es as an outr i ghtban on futur e pr ot ect ed expr es s i on of both i ndi vi dual s and bus i nes s es . ” A l though s om e ol dercas es in v o lv in g s im ila r d is a b ility p ro v is io n s u tiliz e d s u c h h e ig h te n e d s c ru tin y , s e e , e .g ., B ay side E n ters. , Inc . v . C arso n , 4 7 0 F . S u p p . 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 4 -45 (M . D . F la. 1 9 7 9 ); N at co T heatr es, Inc. v. R at ner, 46 3 F . S up p. 11 24 , 11 29 (S. D . N . Y . 19 79 ), m ost
m odern cas es r el yon t he ni che bodyof l aw t hathas devel oped ar ound r egul at i on of adul tbus i nes s es and ana l y ze the di s abi l i typr ovi s i ons undert he t i m e/pl ace / m anners t andar d of ca s es l i ke C i tyof R ent on. See, e. g. , D ej a V u of N as hvi l l e, I nc. v. M etr o. G ov’ tof N as hvi l l e and D avi ds on C ounty , 274 F. 3d 377, 3 9 1 -9 2 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); S c h u ltz v . C ityo f C u m b e rla n d , 2 2 8 F .3 d 8 3 1 , 8 5 1 -5 2 (7 th C i r . 2000) ; B r ow nel l v. C i t yof R oches t er , 190 F. Supp. 2d 472, 493- 94 ( W . D . N . Y . 2001) ; T ee & B ee, I nc. v. C i tyof W es tA l l i s , 936 F. Supp. 1479,D r . J ohn’ s does notar gue thatt he ci vi l di s abi l i typr ovi s i on fai l s t o l eave 29 open al t ernat i ve cha nnel s of comm uni cat i on. S pecifi cal l y , t he C i t yfou nd as fol l ow s: 30 ( 2) Ce rt a i n e mpl o y e es of unr egul at ed s exual l yor i ent ed bus i nes s es

. . . engage i n hi gher i nci dence of cert ai n types of i l l i ci ts exual behavi or t han em ploy ees of o t her est abli shm ents .

. . . . ( 23) T he fact th at an appl i cantforan adul tus e perm i thas been convi ct ed of a s exual l y r el at ed cr i m e l eads t o the r at ion al as s um pt i on th a t th e a p p lica n t m a ye n g a g e in th a t co n d u c t in c o n tra v e n tio n o f th is or di nance . (2 4 ) T h e b a rrin g o f su c h in d iv id u a ls f ro m e m p lo ym e n t in se x u a lly or i ent ed bus i n esse s for a s peci fi ed per i od of y ear s s erves t o pr event di s t r i but i on of i l l egal m at er i al , to p reve ntconductw hi ch l eads t o the t r ans m i s si on of s exual l ytr ans m i t t ed di s eas es , and t o pr ecl ude the e s t a b l i s h m e n to f

c r i m i n a l e n t e rp r i s e s w i th i n t h e C i ty. (continued...)

- 41 - 1 4 8 5 -86 , 1 4 8 9 (E . D . W is. 1 9 9 6 ). W e a g re e w ith th e re a s o n in g o f th e s e c a s e s . T he ci vi l di s abi l i t ypr ovi s i on, enac t ed t o combatt he s econda ryeffect s as s oci at ed
w i t h adul tbus i nes s es , i s a cont ent - neutr al r egul at i on of the mannerof expr es s i on and w i l l be uphel d, perC i t yof R ent on, i f i ti s narr ow l yt ai l or ed t ow ar d a sig n ifica n t g o v e rn m e n t in ter e st. 29 D r. John ’s argues t hat the p rovi si on do es not s erve a si gn i fi cant i nter est b ec au se “ [t]he C ityh as n o t dem o n str ated an yco n n ec ti o n in the legislat ive re co rd betw een the s peci fi ed cr i m i nal act s and adve r s e s econda ryeffect s . ” H ow ever , t he
or di nance m ade s ever al fi ndi ngs s uppor t i ng s uch a c onnect i on. T hes e fi ndi ngs 30(...continued) 30 - 42 - esse n ti all yco n clud e tha t a pe rson co n v ict ed o f a sex crim e— o n e o f th e se co n d ary e ffe c ts th e o rd in a n c e se e k s to c o m b a t— is lik e lyto e n g a g e in th a t b e h a v io r a g a in i n the futur e, and t hat pr even t i ng that per son from w orki ng atan ad ultbu si ness fo r a sp e c ified p e rio d o f tim e w ill h e lp to re d u c e th e c h a n c e th a t su c h c rim e s w ill
occuratt he bus i nes s . T hes e conc l us i ons — thatr eci di vi s m occur s , and thatone w ayt o r educe s ex- cr i m es atadul tbus i nes s es i s t o pr events ex cr i m i nal s fr om w o rk in g th e re — a re c e rta in lyre a so n a b le c o n c lu sio n s fo r a leg isla tiv e b o d yto
m ake. See, e. g. , D ej a V u, 274 F. 3d at392 ( “The O r di nance ’ s ci vi l di s abi l i t i es pr ovi s i ons s erve t o w eed outt hos e appl i cant s m os tl i kel yt o engage i n the type of
c rim in a l b e h a v io r th a t th e O rd in a n c e se e k s to re d re ss . . . . ” ). D r. Jo h n ’s p o in ts to
n o ev iden ce to ch all en g e the C ity ’s rati o n ale; th u s, w e c o n clud e tha t th e C ity ’s leg isla tiv e fin d in g s a re su fficie n t to sh o w th e c iv il d isa b ili typ ro v isio n se rv e s its i nt er es ti n combat i ng s econda r yeffect s . See H ei deman, 348 F. 3d at1199 ( “[C]i t i es ar e ent i t l ed t o r el y , i n part , on ‘ appea l t o comm on s ens e, ’ r atherthan

‘ empi r i cal dat a, ’ atl eas tw her e ther e i s no ‘ actual and convi nci ng evi dence fr om p la in tiffs to th e c o n tr a ry.’” ). D r . J ohn’ s al s o ar gues t hatthe or di nance i s notnarr ow l yt ai l or ed t ow ar ds p re v e n tin g th e se se c o n d a ry e ffe c ts. C ritica l to th e q u e stio n o f n a rro w tailo rin g is
w hethert he types of di s abl i ng cr i m es ar e r el at ed t o the s econda ryeffect s s ought- 43 -

t o be pr event ed ( i . e. , t he pr event i on of s ex- cr i m es ) and w hetherthe dur at i on of th e d isa b ili ty is tem p o ra ry . S e e , e.g ., D eja V u , 2 7 4 F .3 d a t 3 9 2 (d e c lar in g c iv il di s abi l i t ypr ovi s i on cons t i tut i onal “[i ] n l i ghtof the t empora rynatur e of the ban and the narr ow r eac h of the pr ovi s i ons ( appl y i ng onl yt o thos e w ho have
comm i t t ed a fel onys ex cr i m e w i thi n the l as tfi ve y ear s ora mi s demeanors ex c rim e w ith in th e las t tw o y e a rs” ); B ro w n e ll, 1 9 0 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 9 4 -9 6 (g e n e ra lly uphol di ng a ci vi l di s abi l i t ypr ovi s i on buts tr i ki ng outt he “non- s ex cr i m es ” as t he ci t yhad nots how n t hos e cr i m es bor e “a nyr eas onabl e r el at i on t o fur ther i ng the governm ent al i nt er es t ”) ; T ee & B ee, 936 F. Supp. at1490 ( “A s cons trued, t he p ro v is io n d e n ie s a lic e n s e b a s e d o n ly o n c o n v ic tio n s fo r s e x -r e la te d c ri m e s . Fur t herm or e, aft erfi ve y ear s has el aps ed, an i ndi vi dual w i th a pr i orcr i m i nal convi ct i on m ayonce a gai n be el i gi bl e. T hes e bui l t - i n l i m i t at i ons on the s cope of th e p ro v isio n e n su re th a t li c e n se s a re d e n ied o n lyw h e n th e a p p lica n t h a s re c e n tly par t i ci pat ed i n t he type of c r i m i nal act i vi tyas s oci at ed w i th adul t - or i ent ed
e sta b lish m e n ts, p re c ise lyth e so rt o f a c tiv ityw h ich th e o rd in a n c e se e k s to im p e d e .”). T h e R o yC ityc iv il d isa b ili typ ro v isio n sa tisfies th e se re q u ire m e n ts— it di s qual i fi es an appl i cantonl yforconvi ct i ons of s ex- r el at ed cr i m es , and pl ace s tem p o ra rylim its o n th e d isq u a lific a tio n (tw o to fiv e y e a rs) sim ilar to th o se lim its appr oved i n ot hercas es . T he pr ovi s i on i s t hus s uffi ci ent l ynarr ow l yt ai l or edW e ackn ow l edg e t hat the S even th C i rcui thas t aken a harder l i ne ag ai nst 31 ci vi l di s abi l i t ypr ovi s i ons . Forexampl e, i n Schul t z, t he courtfound that t hes e l i cens e i nel i gi bi l i t ypr ovi s i ons abs ol ut el ydi s ent i t l e cl as s es of s peak e r s f

r o m a c a t e g o r y o f e x p r e s s i o n . Th e y p r o d u c e a c o mpl e t e ban on cert ai n exp ression fora di s qual i fi ed gr oup of appl i cant s w ho, by defi ni t i on, w i s h t o s peak, and such a dr as t i c m eas ur e cannot be j us t i fi ed her e as narr ow l yt ai l or ed t o r es i s tnoisom e seconda ryeffect s . I ndeed, [ th e c ity ] n e ith e r c o n d u c ted n o r c ited a n ystu d ye sta b lish in g its b a sic pr emi s e t hat ow ner s hi p orper form ance byt hos e convi ct ed of s peci fi ed crim inal ac ti v ityo r m isco n d u c t is m o re li k elyto lead to se co n d ary effect s t han ow ner s hi p orper form ance byany one el s e. T he governm ent m ay r egul at e the condi t i ons under w hi ch o p e ra to rs a n d p e rfo rm e rs m a ysta g e a d u lt en ter tain m e n t, an d in acc o r d a n c e , i tma ywi t h h o l d o rr e v o k e a l i c e n s e p e n d i n g c o mpl i ance w i t h l egi t i m at e t i m e, pl ace orm annerr equi r ement s . Y ett he governm ent m ay not cat egor i cal l y di s enfr anchi s e a cl as s fr om pr ot ect ed expr es s i on i n t hi s l i cens i ng cont ext , atl eas ton the fa ctual r ecor d C u m b erla nd has compi l ed, beca us e i tt her ebyfai l s t o pr ovi de the al t ernat i ve cha nnel s for c o m m u n ic a tio n re q u ir e d b yR e n to n a n d Y o u n g fo r t h o s e s p e a k e rs . 228 F. 3d at853; s ee a l s o G enus a v. C i tyof Peor i a, 619 F. 2d 1203, 1219 & n. 40 (7th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). A s a n in iti a l m a tter, b o th S c h u ltz a n d G e n u sa a re fa c tu a llyd istin g u ish a b le fr om t he pr es entcas e; t hos e ca s es i nvol ved or di nance s w i th defi ni t i ons of di s abl i ng cr i m i nal act i vi t ythati ncl uded pat ent l ynon- s ex cr i m es . See Schul t z, 228 F. 3d at853 n. 6 ( di s abl i ng offe ns es i ncl uded “ga m bl i ng” and “ di s tr i but i on of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ”) ; G enus a, 619 F. 2d at1217 ( di s abl i ng offe ns es i ncl uded anyfel onyas w el l as any“cr i m e orm i s demeanoroppos ed t o dece ncyand m o ra lity ” ). H o w e v e r, to th e e x ten t th a t th e S e v e n th C irc u it h o ld s th a t civ il di s abi l i t ypr ovi s i ons ar e al w ay s uncons t i tut i onal , atl eas tw i thouts peci fi c s tudi es or evi den ce show i ng t he co nn ect i on betw een sex cri m i nals and second aryeffects , w e di s agr ee fort he r eas ons s t at ed above . - 44 - to w a rd s th e se c o n d a rye ffe c ts th e C ityse e k s to p re v e n t. 31 E . C u stom er s’ P riva cy R igh ts Fi nal l y , D r . J ohn’ s ar gues t hatt he or di nance i nfr i nges upon t he pr i vacy- 45 -

rig h ts o f its c u sto m e rs. T h e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ru le o n th is c laim . T h e C ity
c o n ten d s th a t th is iss u e w a s n o t ev e n ra ise d b yD r. Jo h n ’s b e lo w , an d u rg e s u s to
r efus e t o cons i deri ton appea l . O urr evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s t hatt he i s s ue w as notr ai s ed i n D r . J ohn’ s compl ai ntorm ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , butw as r ai s ed onl yobtus el yatt he conc l us i on of D r . J ohn’ s m emora ndum s ubm i t t ed al ong w ith its m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. W e nee d notdeci de w hethert hi s w as s uffi ci entt o pr es entt he i s s ue t o the d istric t co u rt. S e e g e n e ra llyL a w re n c e K a p lan , A n n o tatio n , S u fficie n c y , in F e d e r a l Co u r t , o f

Ra i s i n g I s s u e Be l o w t o P r e s e r v e M a t t e rfo rAp p e a l , 1 5 7 A. L. R. Fed. 581, 605 ( 1999) ( not i ng t hatt her e i s “[n] o br i ght
- l i ne rul e t o det erm i ne w hether[an] i s s ue has been pr oper l yr ai s ed i n [the] t r i al court . ”) . E ven as s um i ng i tw as notpr oper l yr ai s ed, bot h part i es br i efe d the i s s ue, t he C i tydoes notar gue t h a ti ti s p r ej u d i c e d b yo u rc o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n , a n d , a s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w, th e iss u e is e a silyre so lv e d o n th e m e rits. T h u s, w e e x e rc ise o u r d isc re tio n to cons i dert hi s i s s ue. Si ngl et on v. W ul ff, 428 U . S. 106, 121 ( 1976) ( “The m at t erof
w hatques t i ons m aybe t aken up a nd r es ol ved fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al i s one l eftpr i m ar i l yt o t he di s cr et i on of the court s of appe al s , t o be exe r ci s ed on the fac t s of i ndi vi dual cas es . . . . C ert ai nl yt her e ar e ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch a feder al appel l at e courti s j us t i fi ed i n r es ol vi ng an i s s ue notpas s ed on bel ow , as w her e the p rop er reso luti o n is be y o n d an yd o u b t . . . . ”).D r . J ohn’ s has s t andi ng t o as s ertt he pr i vacyr i ght s of i t s cus t om er s . See 32 C ar eyv. Popul at i on Ser vs . I nt ’ l , 431 U . S. 678, 683- 84 & 684 n. 3 ( 1977) ( hol di ng t hatvendorof non- m edi cal contr ace pt i ve devi ces has s t andi ng t o as s er tr i ght s of cust om ers ; no t i ng t hat the case fo r thir d p artyst and i ng w as com pell i ng “beca use t he ri gh t s i nv olved fall w i t hin the sensi t i ve area of p ers on al pri vacy ”); see al so C raig v . B o ren , 4 2 9 U . S . 1 9 0 , 1 9 2 -97 (19 7 6 ). - 46 - D r. Jo h n ’s a ss e rts th a t th e o rd in a n c e in f rin g e s o n th e se x u a l p riv a c yrig h ts o f its c u sto m e rs to p u rc h a se “ m a rital a id s.” H o w e v e r, D r. Jo h n ’s fa ils to 32 p ro v id e a n ye x p lan a tio n o f h o w th e o rd in a n c e w o u ld in a n yw a yre stric t th e sa le
o f su c h d e v ice s. A s th e C ityp o in ts o u t, on c e a n S O B is lice n se d , itis f re e to “se ll [] a s m u ch sex u all yo ri en ted m erc h an d ise as the m ark et w il l bea r, ” a n d there i s no s how i ng t hatD r . J ohn’ s coul d notobt ai n an SO B l i cens e i f i tw i s hed (al t ho ug h itm i gh tno tbe ab l e t o ret ai n H al t om as an em ploy ee). A nd , atl east som e m ari t al ai ds w ou l d p res um ablybe sold un der even a gen eral bu si ness li ce n se. T h is case is th u s p alpa b lyd iffe ren t from tho se c ase s cit ed b yD r. Jo h n ’s i n s up po r tof

i t s a r gu ment . Se e U ni t e d St a t e s v. Extr e me A s s oc s . , I nc . , 35 2 F. S u p p . 2 d 5 7 8 , 5 8 6 (W .D . P a .), rev ’d , 4 3 1 F .3 d 1 5 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ D e fe n d a n ts fur t herar gue thatbeca us e the fe der al obs ceni tyl aw s pl ace a compl et e ban on the dis t ri bu t i on of m at eri al s that an i nd i vidual has t he fu nd am ental ri gh tt o p ossess and vi ew i n pr i vat e, t he s t atut es s houl d be s ubj ect ed t o the s tr i cts crut i nyt es t . ”) ( emphasi s added) ; W i l l i ams v. Pr y or , 220 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1259- 60 ( N . D . A l a. 2002) , r ev’ d s ub nom . W i l l i ams v. A t t orneyG en. , 378 F. 3d 1232 ( 11th C i r . 2004) (“ T h e c o n stitu tio n a l g u a ra n tee s th a t ac c o m p a n yp lain tiffs’ f u n d a m e n tal rig h t toD r . J ohn’ s m ot i on t o s t r i ke R oyC i ty ’ s r es pons e t o D r . J ohn’ s s ubm i s s i on 33 o f s u p p l e me n t a l a u t h o r i t yi s GR ANT E D. - 47 - pr i vacyw i l l notperm i tt he St at e of A l abama t o pr ohi bi tpl ai nt i ffs fr om p u rc h a sin g se x u a l d e v ice s fo r u se w ith in th e c o n fin e s o f th e ir p riv a te, a d u lt,
cons ens ual , s exual r el at i ons hi ps . . . . ”) ( emphasi s added) ; Peopl e ex r el . T ool ey v. Seven Thi r t y - Fi ve E. C ol fax, I nc. , 697 P. 2d 348, 369- 70 ( C ol o. 1985) ( “[The l aw ] s w eep[ s ] t oo br oadl yi n [i t s ] bl anketpr os cr i pt i on of al l devi ces ‘ des i gned or
m arket ed as us eful pr i m ar i l yforthe s t i m ul at i on of hum an geni t al or gans . ’ ”) ( emphasi s added) . T hus , even a s s um i ng D r . J ohn’ s ’ s cus t om er s have a s exual pr i vacyr i ghti n t he s exual devi ces and mar i t al ai ds thatD r . J ohn’ s s el l s , thi s r i ght i s i n no w ayi nfr i nged byt he R oyC i tyor di nance .
CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM t he s ubs t ant i al m aj or i tyof the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s rul i ngs . W e do, how ever , R E M A N D forfur therpr ocee di ngs on th e q u e stio n o f

w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g th e “ se c o n d a rye ffe c ts” o f a d u lt bus i nes s es i s s uffi ci entt o j us t i fyt hi s or di nance as a r eas onabl e t i m e/pl ace / m anner r egul at i on. 33