### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Cir c uit

No. 17-3023

HH-I ND I ANAP OL I S

, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

C ON S OL I D AT E D C I T

Y O F I ND I ANAP OL I S AND C OUNT

Y OF M ARI O N

, I ND I ANA

, et al ., Defendants-Appellees.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the S o uthern Di stri ct o f Indi ana, Indi ana po l i s Di v i si on. No . 1 :1 7 -cv -0 0 0 3 6 -S EB-DM L — Sa ra h Eva ns Ba r ke r , Judg e.

A RGU E D M ARC H 29, 2018

— D E C I D E D M A Y 7, 2018

Befor e B AU E R

, F L AUM , and M AN I ON

, Circuit Judges

. B AU E R , Cir cuit Judge. HH-Indi anapoli s, LL C (“HH”), i ntended to open a r etai l establi shment in Indi anapoli s under the name “Hustler Hollyw ood.” After enter in g into a ten-y ear lease a t 5505 E. 8 2nd S t. (“the Pr oper ty”), HH appli ed for si gn and bui ld in g per m i ts. Pr oblemati cally , HH’s p r oposed stor e2 No. 17-3023

w as l ocated i n a zoni ng di str i ct that pr ohib i te d “ a d ult enter

tai nment b usinesses,” as defined under th e Indi anapoli sMar ion County Zoni ng Or dinance (“the Or dinance”). Upon

r ev i ew , the Depar tment of Business and Nei ghb or hood S er v i c es (DBNS ) deter m ined that HH w as an a dult enter tai nment busin ess, a deci si on whi ch the Boar d of Zoni ng Appeals (BZA) affi r med.
HH fi led thi s lawsui t agai nst the Consoli dated Ci ty of Indi anapolis and County of Mar i on, Indi ana, the DBNS, and the BZA (collecti v ely

, “the Ci ty”) seeki ng a declar ator y j udgment that the Or dinance vi olated i ts Fi r st and Four teenth A m e ndment ri ghts and v i olated state admini str ati v e law , a s
w ell a s aski ng for an i nj uncti on agai nst the Ci ty’s enfor cement of the Or dinance ag a in s t HH. HH challenged the Or dinance under the Fi r st Amendment both a s appli ed t o i t, as w ell

as faci ally fo r ov erbr eadth and v agueness. Th e di str i ct cour t deni ed HH’s moti on for a pr eli min ar y inj uncti on, and HH fi led thi s i n ter locutor y appeal challenging that deci si on only wi th

r espect to i ts as-appli ed Fi r st Amendment clai m . W e affi r m. I. BACKGROUND HH-Enter tainment, Inc., the par ent c ompany of H H, oper ates r etai l stor es under t he name “Hustler Hollyw ood” thr oughout the Uni ted States in ov er tw enty locatio n s
. HH

w as i ncor por ated i n Indi anapoli s in or der to open a stor e that

w ould sell a v ar i ety of mer chandi se, inc lu d ing linger i e, gaggi fts, i n str uctio n a l DVDs and li ter atur e, m a r i tal ai ds, and sexual dev i ces, such as di ldos and v ibr ator s. Accor ding to HH,

w h en i t seeks to open a new retai l stor e, i t studi es the c it y ’ s muni ci pal or din a n c e in or der to av oi d b ei ng c lassi fi ed as an “adult” stor e.No. 17-3023 3
T h e Or din ance, whi ch went in to effect on Apr i l 1, 2 0 1 6 , establi shes s i x di ffer ent Commer ci al Zoni ng Di str i cts. City of Ind ia napoli s and Mar i on County Consoli dated Zoni n g and S ubdi v i si on Or dinance, § 742-104(B)–(G) (Apr i l 1 , 2016). “The C

- 3 Di str i ct (Nei ghbor hood Commer ci a l Di str i ct) i s f or t he dev elopment of an extensi v e r ange of r etai l sales and p er sonal, pr ofessi onal a nd business ser vi c es r equi r ed t o meet the demands of a fully dev elo p e d r esi denti al nei ghbor hood,

r egar dless of i ts si ze.” § 742-104(C). The Or dinance also r egulates “ adult enter t ai nment busi

nesses.” See § 74 3

- 3 0 5 (A). An a dult enter tainment b usiness i s pr ohibi ted fr om oper ati ng in a C-3 di str i ct as a r i ght, although i t may obtai na v ar i ance to oper ate i n a C-3 di str i c t. See § 743- 305(A)(3)(b). How ev e r , an adult enter tai n ment business may oper a te a s a r i gh t i n t hr ee of the si x di str i cts: C-4 (Communi ty-Regi on a l Di str i c t); C-5 (Gener al Commer ci al Di str i ct); and C-7 (Hi gh-Intensi ty Commer c i al Di str i ct). Id. The v ar i ous typ e s of adult enter tai nment businesses ar e defined under the Or dinance. See § 740-202(A). Relev ant to thi s appeal, an “adult bookstor e” i s defin ed as follows: An establi s hment hav in g at least 25% of i ts: 1. Retai l floor space u sed for the di s p lay of adult pr oducts; or
2. S tock in tr ade c onsi sti ng of a dult pr oducts; or 3. W eekly r ev enue der i v ed fr om a dult pr oducts.4 No. 17-3023
Id. “Adult pr oducts” means a ny m e d ia ( e.g. , books, fi lms, magazi nes, photogr aphs) “that ar e di sti ngui shed or char acter

i zed by thei r e mphasi s on matter depi cti ng, descr ibing or
r elatin g to speci fi ed sexual ac t iv i ti es or speci fi ed anatomi cal

ar eas;” as w ell as any dev i c e “desi gned or mar keted as useful pr i mar i ly for the sti mulati on o f human geni tal or gans, or for sadomasochi sti c use or abuse,” includ in g , b ut not li mi ted to, chains, d i l dos, muzzles, phalli c s haped v ibr ator s, and whi ps. Id. Addi ti onally , the Or d inance d efines a n “adult

ser v i ce establi s h m ent” as “ [a]ny bui lding, pr emi ses, str uctur e
or other faci li ty

, or par t ther eof, under common owner shi p or contr ol whi ch pr ov i des a pr eponder ance of ser v i ces inv olv ing speci fi ed sexual acti v i ti es 1 or di splay of s peci fi ed anatomi cal

ar eas. 2 ” Id.

1 “ S peci fi ed sex ua l a cti v i ti es” i s defi n ed a s a ny o f the fo l l o w i ng: (1 ) Huma n geni ta l s i n a sta te of sex ua l sti mul a ti o n o r
a ro usa l ; (2 ) A cts of human ma s turb a ti o n, s ex ua l i nterco u rse o r so do my; (3 ) Fo ndl ing o r o ther ero t ic to u chi ng o f human geni ta l s, pub i c regi o ns, b utto cks o r fema l e b rea sts; (4 ) Fl a gel l a ti on o r to rture i n the co ntex t of a sex ua l rel a ti onshi p; (5 ) M a so chi sm, ero ti c o r s ex ua ll y o ri ented to rture, b ea ti ng o r the i nfl i cti o n of pa in; (6 ) Ero t i c to uchi ng, fo ndl i ng o r o t h e r such co nta ct wi th an a ni ma l b y a human b ei ng; o r (7 ) H uma n ex creti o n , uri na ti o n, menstrua ti o n , v a gi na l o r a na l i rri g a ti o n a s pa rt o f o r i n co nnecti o n wi th a ny o f the a cti v i ti es set fo rth i n ” (1 ) thro ugh (6 ). § 7 4 0 -2 02 (A ).

2 “S peci fi ed a na to mi ca l a rea s” i s defi ned a s a ny o f the fo l l o wi n g: “ (1 ) Less tha n co mpl etel y a nd o p a qu el y co v ered human geni ta l s, pub i c regi o n , b utto cks, a nus o r fema l e b rea sts b el o w apo i nt i mmedi a tel y ab o v e the to p
o f the a reo l a e; (2 ) Huma n ma l e geni ta l s i n adi s cerni b ly turgi d s ta t e, ev en (co nti nued...)No. 17-3023 5
In ear ly 2016, HH began explor ing the possi bil it y of openi ng a stor e i n Indi anapoli s
. HH i denti fi ed a v acant
commer ci al pr oper ty at 5505 E

. 82nd S tr eet, on Indi anapoli s ’
nor theast si de. The Pr oper ty is l o c ated in a C-3 di str i ct, 3 and

a dr i v ew ay separ ates the Pr oper ty fr om a Chuck E. Cheese’s,

a ki d-fr i endly r estau r a n t and enter tai nment center

. Notably , di r ectly acr oss 82nd S tr eet to the nor th of the Pr oper ty i s a C-4 di str i ct wher e H H c ould oper ate fr eely as an adult e n t e r tai nment business as a r i ght.
HH w as aw ar e that the Ci ty w as r ev i sing the then-exi sti ng zoni ng or din a n ce, a nd pr eempti v ely c ontacted Ci ty offi ci als in
or der to appr i se themselv es of the r ev i sed Or dinance, par ti cular ly the “adult” pr ov i si ons. Accor din g to HH, i t enter ed into
a ten-y ear lease at the Pr oper ty on July 14, 2016, in r eli a nce on the communi c ati ons i t had wi th Ci ty offi ci a ls. S h or tly ther eafter , HH appli ed f or a str uctur a l p e r mi t to r emodel the Pr oper ty , a nd for a si gn per mi t to hang exter i or s ig n s. The DBNS flagged the a ppli cati ons after noti cing that the pr oposed si gns stated “Hustler Hollyw ood,” a nd adv er ti se d s uch thi ngs as

2 (...co nti nued) i f co mpl etel y a nd o pa q uel y co v ered.” § 7 4 0 -2 02 (A ).

The enti re phra se “ serv i ces i nv o l v i ng speci fi ed sex ua l a cti v i ty o r di spl a y
o f speci fi ed ana to mi ca l a rea s” i s defi ned a s “ [a ]ny co mb i na ti o n o r [two ] o r
mo re” a mo ng fi v e di fferent a cti v i t i es. § 740 -2 02 (A ). The r e l e va nt two
ca t ego ri es fo r the purpo se o f thi s a ppea l a re di scussed b el o w.

3 A ddi ti o na l l y, the Pro perty i s 3 5 5 feet fro m a D-2 dwel l i ng di stri ct. Under the Ordi na nce, a d u l t enterta inment b usi nesses ma y n ot o pera te a s a ri ght wi thi n 5 0 0 f e e t o f a dwel l i ng di stri ct. Thus, ev en if th e Pro perty were n ot l o ca ted in a C-3 di stri ct, i t wo ul d sti ll need a v a ri a nce to o pera t e wi thi n tha t
ra nge o f a dwel l ing di stri ct.6 No. 17-3023
“er oti ca.” Gi v en that the P r o per ty i s located in a C-3 di str i ct, the DBNS w as concer ned HH w as intending to oper ate an adult enter tai nment busin ess
. H H ’ s appli c ati ons w er e put on hold, and the DBNS r equested addi ti onal infor mati on in or der to v er i fy that HH w as per m i tted to oper ate in a C-3 d i s tr i ct. In

r esponse, HH submi tted a w eekly inv entor y and sales pr oj ecti on, whi ch pr oj ected the s tock and sales of a d u l t pr oducts, a floor plan wi th squar e footage desi gnati ons, and a descr i pti on of the b usiness. After r ev i ewin g thi s infor mati on, whi ch the DBNS descr ibed a s “i mpr eci se and contr a d ic t or y ,” the DBNS concluded that HH w as ei ther an adult bookstor e or an adult

ser v i ce establi shment. Instead of electi ng to seek a v ar i a n ce wi th the DBNS, HH appealed to the BZA. Pr i or to the hear ing befor e the BZA, the DBNS staff submi t t ed a r epor t explai ning i ts deci si on. In explai ning the a dult bookstor e classi fi cati on, the DBNS noted the inv entor y and sales pr oj ecti on pr ov i d ed by HH in di cated that only 16.1% of their in v e n t or y and 23.9% of thei r sales

w ould der i v e fr om “adult p r o d u cts.” How ev er , the DBNS poi nted to other pr oj ecti ons that r ender ed those fi gur es i mpr eci se: 32.2% of i nv entor y and 12.8% of sales w er e b r oadly categor i zed as “gener al mer chandi s e;” and “toys” accounted for 13.1% of i nv entor y and 28.8% of sales. A dd in g ei ther of these fi gur es t o the adult pr oducts fi gur es w ould put HH abov e the 25% thr eshold f or a du l t b ookstor es under the Or dinance. Mor eov er

, “sensual car e” pr oducts w er e to be sold behind a separ ati on w all a l ong wi th adult pr oducts; y et, sensual car e pr oducts w er e not included in the adult pr oducts pr oj ecti on. HH stated in thei r b usiness descr i pti on that sensual

car e pr oducts i ncluded gels, oi ls, loti ons and mar i tal ai ds, andNo. 17-3023 7
the DBNS noted that “ [m]ar i tal ai ds, by d efini ti on, ar e s ex toys.” Fur ther , the DBNS found that ev en i f HH w a s not an a dult bookstor e, i t w ould be classi fi ed as an a dult ser v i ce establi shment. Under the Or dinance, pr ov i d in g “a pr epo nder ance of

ser v i ces i nv o l v i ng speci fi ed sexual acti vi ti es or di splay of speci fi ed a n atomi cal ar eas” means any combinati on of tw o or
mor e speci fi ed categor i es of ser v i ces. Accor d in g to the DBNS, the tw o categor i es that appli ed to H H w er e (1) “[t]h e s ale or di splay” of m edi a “char acter i z ed by an emph a s is upon the depi cti on or descr i pti on of speci fi ed se x u a l acti v i ti es or speci fi ed anatomi cal ar eas; ” and (2) the pr esentati on of such medi a f or obser v a ti on by patr ons. T h e D BNS concluded that HH plain ly fi t under the fi r st categor y based on th e pr oducts i t i ntended to sell, as w ell as the pr ese n t a ti on-of-medi a categor y sin ce ot h e r H ustler Hollyw ood locati ons offer ed w or kshops and classes i nv olv in g li v e d emonstr ati ons or v i deos, wi th ti tles such as “Mastur bati on W

or kshop.” The BZA held a hear ing on Decembe r 6, 2016. H H appear ed by co u n s e l and pr esented a r ev i s ed inv entor y and sales pr oj ecti on. H H c lai med that the in i ti al pr oj ecti ons h ad mi stakenly i ncluded fi gur es fr om nati onwi de-stor es and onli n e sales. In the new pr oj ecti ons, only 8.7% o f in v entor y and 12.4% of sales w ould be “adult pr oducts.” HH insi sted that i t di d not i ntend to oper ate an adult book stor e or an adult ser v i ce establi shment, and that i t w ould not offer any w or kshops or classes that ar e offer ed at other Hustle r H ollyw ood stor es. Fi nally , HH i nv i ted Ci ty offi ci als to inspect the Pr oper ty once i t w as r eady to open.8 No. 17-3023
R e m o n s t r a t o r s, a gr oup composed of communi ty m e mb e r s, pr oper ty owner s, and tenants, appear ed by c ounsel in opposi

ti on t o HH’s pr oposed stor e. They submi tted ev i dence to counter HH’s ar gument that i t di d not i n t e nd to oper ate an adult enter tainment business, including photogr aphs f r om other Hustler Hol l y w ood locati ons s howing adult pr oducts

v i si bly di splay ed thr oughout the stor e, as w ell as adv er ti sements fr om the H ustler Hollyw ood w ebsi te for w or ksh o p s and classes at thei r stor es. The Remonstr ator s also emphasi zed that the P r oper ty w as si tuated next to Chuck E. Cheese’s, as well as
a bus stop fr equented b y s chool chi ldr en. A Ci ty counci llor also appear ed at the hear i ng and ar gued th a t HH

- E nter tai nment had a hi stor y of d ecepti on in openi ng stor es n ati onwi de. At the conclusi on of the hear ing, the BZA v oted unani mously , 5-0, to affi rm the deci si on of the DBNS

. Rather than seek j udic i a l r e v i ew of that deci si on in an Indi ana state cour t pur suant to Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(d), HH fi led thi s lawsui t agai nst the Ci ty on Januar y 5, 2 0 1 7. HH sought declar ator y and inj unc ti v e r eli ef under thr ee di ffer ent Fi r st Amendment theor i es: (1) an a s-appli ed challenge to the Ci ty’s deter minati on that HH i s an a d u l t enter tai nment business; ( 2 ) a faci a l challenge for v agueness to the defini ti on of an “adult ser v i ce establi shment;” and ( 3 ) a faci al challenge for ov erbr eadth to the defini ti on of an “adult s er v i ce establi shment.” HH also sought r eli ef und e r the Equal Pr otecti on Cla use of the Four teenth Amendment, and challenged the Ci ty’s deter minati on as arbi tr ar y , capr i ci ous, and unsuppor ted by substanti al ev i dence underIndi ana law

. O n J une 6, 2017, HH fi led for a pr eli minar y in juncti o n
. After br i efing and a hear ing, the cour t deni ed HH’s moti on onNo. 17-3023 9
S eptember 2 2, 2017. HH-Indianapolis LLC v
. C o nsol. City of I n d ianapolis/Marion Cty ., Ind. , 265 F

. S upp. 3d 873 (S .D. Ind

. 2017). The cour t found that HH w as unli kely to succeed on the

mer i ts u nder any of the Fi r s t Amendment t h e o r i es, or under the Equal Pr otecti on c la im

. I d. at 881–891. Addi ti onally , the

cour t concluded that HH had not alleged an i rr epar able inj ur y i n i ts state law clai m. Id. at 891. HH then fi led thi s inter locutor y appeal pur suant to 28 U.S .C. § 1292(a)(1).

II. DISCUSSION “A pr eli mina r y inj uncti on i s a n extr aor dinar y r emedy .” Whitaker v
. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ. , 858 F .3d 1034, 1044 (7th Cir

. 2 0 1 7). A par ty s eeki ng a pr eli minar y i nj uncti on must sati sfy all thr ee r equi r ements in the “thr eshold phase” by s howing that (1) i t wi ll s uffer i rr epar able har m in the per i od befor e the r esoluti on o f it s clai m; ( 2) tr a di ti onal legal

r emedi es ar e i nadequate; a nd ( 3) t her e i s some li keli hood of

success on the mer i ts of the clai m. G i rl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v
. Girl Scouts of U.S. o f A m
. , Inc. , 549 F .3d 1079, 1 086 (7th Ci r
. 2008). If a par ty makes the necessar y s ho w in g , the cour t mov es to the “balancing phase.” I d. At that phase, the

c o u r t e m ploys a sli ding-scale appr oach and “w ei ghs the f a c t o r s agai nst one another

, assessing wheth e r the balance of har ms fav or s the mov i ng par ty or whether the har m to other par ti es
or the publi c i s suffi ci ently w ei ghty that the in juncti on should b e d eni ed.” BBL, Inc. v
. City of Angola , 809 F .3d 317, 324 (7th Ci r . 2015). HH contends that the di str i ct c our t er red wi th r espect to i ts finding that HH w as not li kely to succeed on the mer it s of i ts as-appli ed Fi r st Amendm e n t c lai m
. The li keli hood of s uccess
r equi r ement i s a low thr eshold; HH m u s t only show that i ts10 No. 17-3023
clai m ’s chance of success is “better than negli gible.” Whitaker , 8 5 8 F .3d at 1046 ( quoti n g Cooper v
. Salazar , 196 F .3d 8 09, 81 3 (7th Ci r . 1999)). W

e r ev i ew the deni a l of a pr eli minar y i nj u ncti on for a n abuse of di scr eti on, r ev i ewing the legal conclusi ons de novo and the factual fin dings for clear er r or
. V alencia v . City of Springfield, Ill. , 883 F .3d 959, 966 (7th Ci r . 2018). At or al ar gument, HH descr ibed i t s c lai m as a “contentbased, pr i or r estr ai nt, as-appli ed clai m.” Combin in g t h ese
v ar i ous ter ms fr om Fi r st Amendment j ur i spr udence into a single c l a i m r e q ui res some unpacking. W e begi n wi th the f r a mew or k for analyzi ng zoni ng regulati ons of sexuall y
or i ented adult businesses under the Fi r st Amendment, whi ch d er i v es fr om the S upr eme Cour t’s deci s i ons in Y oung v
. American Mini Theatr

es, Inc. , 427 U.S

. 50 (1976) (plur ali ty), City of Renton v
. P laytime Theatr es, Inc. , 475 U.S

. 41 (1986), a nd City of Los Angeles v
. Alameda Books, Inc. , 5 35 U.S

. 425 (2002) (plur alit y )

. U nder thi s fr amew or k, r egulati ons that do not pr ohibi t adult businesses a ltogether , but m er ely r egulate thei r locati on,
ar e analyzed as ti me, place, an d manner r egulati ons. Renton , 475 U.S

. at 46

. T h e r egulati ons must be “content-neutr al,” 4 meaning they ar e n ot ai med at the content of the a dult b usiness e s, but r a ther the har mful and undesi r able “secondar y effects” of such busines s e s on the sur r ounding communi ty

.

4 “ The ‘ co ntent-neutra l ’ l ab el in th is co ntex t i s a mi sno mer; regul a ti o n s
a i med a t a dul t b usi nesses a ppl y to certa in types o f speech a nd no to thers. A s such, Justi ce Kennedy rema rked i n hi s Alam ed a Books co ncurrence tha t ‘[t]hese o rdi n a nces a re co ntent b a sed, a n d w e sho ul d ca l l them so .’” BBL , 8 0 9 F .3 d a t 3 2 5 (quo ti n g Alam ed a Books , 5 3 5 U .S

. a t 4 4 8 (Kennedy, J.,
co n curri ng)).No. 17-3023 11
Alameda Books , 5 35 U.S

. at 444

–4 7 (K ennedy , J ., c oncur ri ng); 5 Renton , 475 U.S

. at 47; Am. Mini Theaters , 427 U.S . at 70–72. If the r egulati ons ar e “content-based,” they “ w ould be consi der ed p r esumpti v ely inv ali d and subj ect to s t r ict s cr uti ny .” Alameda Books , 535 U.S

. at 434 (plur ali ty opi n io n). How ev er

, “con t e n t-neutr al” ti me, place, and manner r egulati ons of a dult businesses ar e subj ect t o inter medi ate scr uti ny whi ch means that: (1) the r egulati ons must be “desi gned to
ser v e a substantia l gov er nmental inter est” in c urbing the secondar y effects, and be nar r owly tai lor ed tow ar d that i nter est; and (2) they must “allow[] for reasonable a lter nati v e
av enues of communi cati on.” Renton , 475 U.S

. at 50–52; see also BBL , 809 F .3d at 327.
HH ar gues that the Ci ty’s enfor c ement of the Or dinance, as appli ed to them, has “si lenced” thei r a b il ity to exer ci se thei r Fi r st Amendment r i ghts at the locati on o f thei r choosi ng. Accor ding to HH, the Ci ty classi fi ed them as a n a d ult enter

tai nment busin ess i n or der to “suppr ess” unw anted speech, in li ght of the publi c outcr y fr om the Remonstr a tor s. How ev er

, H H ’ s speech has not been si lenced or s upp r e ss e d; r a ther

, HH has only been told that i t c annot oper ate i n a par ti cularcommer ci al di str i ct and must mov e elsewher e. “A zoni n g measur e can be consi stent wi th the Fi r st Amendment i f i t i s li kely to cause a si gni fi cant decr ease insecondar y
e ffects and a tr i v i al decr ease in the quanti ty of spe e c h

. ” Alameda B ooks , 5 35 U.S

. at 445 (Kennedy , J., concur r in g).

5 Alam ed a Books w a s deci ded b y a pl u r al i ty, and w e ha v e trea ted Justi ce Kennedy’s co ncurri ng opi ni o n a s the ho ldi ng o f the ca se. See BBL , 8 09 F.3 d

a t 3 2 5

.12 No. 17-3023 Unquesti onably

, the C it y has p r ov i ded HH wi th r easonable alter nati v e a v enues of communi cati on in a number o f other

commer c ia l di str i cts, a fact HH does n ot di spute. HH may oper ate as a ri ght i n a C-4, C-5, or C-7 di str i ct, and a C-4 di s tr i ct l ie s d ir ectly n or th of the Pr oper ty

. “[T]he Fi rst Amendment

r equi r es only that [the Ci ty] refr ain fr om effecti v ely denyi ng [HH] a r easonable oppor tuni ty to open and oper ate” an a dult

e n ter tai nment busin ess wi thi n Indi anapoli s. Renton , 475 U.S

. at 54. Th er e i s si mply “no Fi r st Amendment obj ecti on” when the Ci ty exer ci ses i ts zoni ng pow er to r educe the secondar y effects of adult businesses, and HH has a lter nati v e av enues o f

c o m mu n i cati on. A lameda B ooks , 535 U.S

. at 445 (Kennedy , J. , concur ri n g). Mor eov e r

, HH does not di spute that the Or dinance i s “content-neutr al,” or that the Ci ty’s inter est in r educ in g t he secondar y effects of adult businesses, codi fi ed at length in the Or dinance, i s a suffi ci ent or substanti al inter est. See Ci ty of Indi anapoli s and M a r i on County Consoli dated Zoni n g and S ubdi v i si on Or dinan c e § 743-305(A)(1) ( “It i s the pur pose of thi s secti on
... to r egulate adult enter tai nment businesses
... to pr omote the health, safety , mor als, and gener al w elfar e of the ci ti zens of Mar i on County , and to establi sh r easonable and uni f or m pr ov is i ons to pr ev ent the deleter i ous effects of a dult enter tai nment businesses wi thi n Mar i on County .”) Nor could i t since the S upr eme Cour t has r epeatedly r ecogni zed that thi s is a legi ti m ate i nter est. See Alameda Books , 535 U.S

. at 44 4 (Kennedy

, J., concur r i ng) (“Muni ci pal gov er nments know that hi gh concentr a ti ons of adult businesses can damage the v alue and i n tegr i ty of a nei ghbor hood

... . The law d oes not r equi r e a ci ty to i gnor e these consequences i f i t u ses i ts zoni ng pow er in a r easonable w ay to ameli or ate them wi thout suppr essingNo. 17-3023 13 speech.”); American Mini Theaters , 427 U.S

. at 71 (“[T]he ci ty’s i nter est i n att e m p t i n g to pr eser v e the quali ty of u rban li fe i s
one th a t m ust be accor ded hi gh r espect.”). Accor dingly , because the Or dinance i s c ontent-neutr al, ser v es a substanti al in ter est, and allows for H H to oper ate in numer ous ot he r
commer ci al di s tr i cts, HH’s lik e l i h ood of success on i ts Fi r st Amendment clai m i s not better than negli gible.
HH i nsi s ts i t demonstr ated a lik elih ood of success on the

m e r its because the di str i ct cour t di d not employ the pr ope r lev el of scr uti ny in r e v i e wing i ts clai m. Accor d ing to HH, feder al cour ts dealing wi th an as-appli ed c h a l l enge hav e a “duty to engage i n a cr i ti c al exami nati on of the gov er nment’s

r easoning and ev i denti ar y s uppor t for applyi ng the or dinance i n a par ti cular w ay

.” That sounds l i k e s t r i ct scr uti ny
. HH di r ects us to a number of cases wher e c o ur ts hav e per for med

some hei ghtened lev el of scr uti ny in a n alyzi ng an as-appli ed Fi r st Amendment challenge. See, e.g., In re P rimus , 436 U.S

. 412, 432–39 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ( a p p l y in g “ e x a c t in g s c r u ti ny” to S outh Car oli na’s attor ney regulator y scheme as a ppli ed to an attor ney soli c i ti ng
a pr ospecti v e cli ent by mai l); United States v
. Marcavage, 609 F .3d 264, 274–91 ( 3d Ci r
. 2010) (applying str i c t scr utin y t o a content-based appli cati on of na t i onal par k r egulati on agai nst
an anti

- abor ti on pr otester in a p ubli c for um). Y et, n one of these

cases i nv olv e a s-appli ed challenges to consti tuti onal ti me, place, and manner zoni ng r egulati ons of adult businesses whi ch the S upr e m e Cour t has made abundantly clear ar e subj ect to i nter medi ate scr uti ny
. 6

6 H H a l s o rel i es o n Fantasy Book Sh op , Inc. v
. City of Boston , 6 5 2 F.2 d 1 1 1 5 (1 st Ci r. 1 9 81 ), to suppo rt a hei ghtened l ev el o f s cruti ny. Tha t ca se i nv o lv ed (co nti nued...)14 No. 17-3023
The cr i ti c al i nqui r y in thi s as-appli ed challenge i s whether the Ci ty’s appli cati on of t h e Or dinance to HH r esulted in an unconsti tuti onal effect, i.e. , an abr i dgment of i ts Fi r st Amendment r i ghts. See Members of City Council o f City of Los Angeles v
. T axpayers for V

incent, 466 U.S

. 7 89, 805–12 (1984) (findin g no unconsti tuti onal effect in the appli cati on of a ti me, place, and

manne r o r d inance whi ch r estr i cted a p oli ti cal gr oup’s abi li ty to p o st si gns on uti li ty poles). The Ci ty’s appli cati on of t he Or dinance h a s r esulted only in an inci dental r estr i cti on on HH’s speech i n a par ti c ular locati on. HH has n o t been depr i v ed of thei r Fi r st Amendment r i ght to oper ate in Indi anapoli s
. The Ci ty h as si mply told HH that i t cannot oper ate in a C-3 di str i ct, whi le also pr ov i ding numer ous other a v e n u es for speech i n C-4, C-5, and C-7 di str i cts, including a C

- 4 di s tr i ct di r ectly acr oss the str eet. The Ci ty acknowledges that the Or d in ance functi ons as a for m of pr i or r estr ai nt, and in f act, di d so in thi s case. Y et, “pr i or r estr ai nts ar e not per se unconsti tuti onal,” Schultz v
. City of Cumberland , 228 F .3d 831, 851 (7th Ci r
. 2000), a nd w e hav e pr ev i ously s t a ted that pr i or r estr ai nts “ar e consti tuti onally legi ti mate i f they ar e p r o pe r ti me, place, or m anner restr i cti ons.” Pleasureland Mu s e u m , Inc. v
. Beutter, 288 F .3d 988, 1000 (7th Ci r
. 2002). As w e hav e alr eady found, the Or d inance i s a consti tuti onal ti me, place, and man n e r r egulati on. Mor eov er ,

6 (...co nti nued)

a n a s -a ppl i ed cha l l enge to a muni ci pa l l i censi ng o rdi na nce tha t regul a ted

a dul t b usi nesses
. See id

. a t 1 1 1 8– 2 0. Ho wev er, i t l a cks persua si v e v a l ue b eca use i t wa s deci ded b efo re the S upreme Co urt’s d e c i si on in Renton , whi ch estab l i shed the i ntermedi a te s cruti ny fra mewo rk fo r a dul t z o n i ng
o rdi na nces.No. 17-3023 15
HH d oes not allege a lack of pr ocedur al safeguar ds in the Ci ty’s z oni ng s cheme that the S upr eme Cour t has no t e d may
r esult i n unconsti tuti o n a l pr i or r estr ai nt. See FW/PBS, Inc. v
. City of Dallas , 493 U.S

. 215, 225–28 (1990) (notin g t h a t censor s h i p may r esult when ther e i s unfetter ed di scr eti on in the hands of publi c offi ci als, or a lack of pr ompt j udi ci a l r ev i ew). U l t i m a t e l y

, H H ’ s “ c o n t ent-based, pr i or r estr a int, as-appli e d clai m ” b oi l s down to the following: (1) the e v id e n c e does not suppor t the D BNS and BZA’s deter minati on that HH w as ei ther an adult bookstor e or an adult ser v i ce establi shment; (2) the Ci ty i ntended to r estr ai n HH’s speech g iv e n the publi c outcr y fr om the Remonstr ator s; and (3) the Ci ty should hav e a t l e a s t in spected the Pr oper ty or allow ed HH to open ther e condi ti onally

. How ev er

, an er r oneous appli cati on of a zoni ng
or dinance i s unli kely to be a Fi r st Amendment v io l ati on. Indeed, feder al cour ts “ar e not zoni ng b o a r d s of appeal,” CEner gy-Glenmore W

ind Farm No. 1, LLC v
. T own of Glenmore, 769 F .3d 485, 487 (7th Ci r
. 2 0 1 4 ) , a n d Indi ana law pr ov i des j udi ci al r ev i ew for zoni ng deci si ons that ar e c h allenged as
arb i tr ar y , c apr i ci ous, or unsuppor ted b y the ev i dence. See Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(d )

. I n fact, the S upr eme Cour t has found

or dinar y s tate cour t ci v i l pr ocedur es suffici ent to pr otect any F i r st Amendment i nter ests in er r oneous zoni ng deter m inati ons. See City of Littleton, Colo. v
. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. , 541 U.S

. 774, 782 (2004). Nothi ng that HH has alleged gi v es r i se to a n u n consti tuti onal effect or Fi r s t Amendment v io l ati on. The BZA holds hear i ngs i n or der to li sten to testi mony an d e v i d e n ce, including
ev i dence fr om the DBNS a nd “other per sons,” such as the Remonstr ator s. See Ind. Code § 36-7-4-920(e)–(f ); Metr o Boar d16 No. 17-3023
of Zoni ng Appeals of Mar i on County , Indi ana, Rules of Pr ocedur e (2014). The B ZA di d not hav e to beli ev e HH when i t stated i t w ould n ot offer w or kshops or classes, n o r d i d i t hav e to i gnor e ev i dence fr om other Hustler Hollyw ood stor es. A ddi ti onally

, the BZA w as not r equi r ed to d i sr egar d H H ’ s i ni ti al i nv entor y and sales pr oj ecti ons whi ch contr adi cted thei r second pr oj ecti ons. HH pr esented no e v idence in the di s tr i ct
cour t or on appeal that o f f ic ia ls fr om the DBNS or BZA di splay ed any bi as or censor i al intent in thei r deter minati ons. Fur ther mor e, the Ci ty w as underno consti tuti onal obli gati on t o in sp e ct the Pr oper ty or allow HH to open c ondi ti onally befor e maki n g i ts deter minati on. Ulti mately

, t h e questi on of whether the Ci ty’s deter m inati on r ested on a suffi ci ent ev i denti ar y basi s i s pr oper l y sui ted for s tate cour t r ev i ew

. That ev i denti a r y i ssue does not pr esent
a Fi rst Amendment v i olati on, nor d oes i t j usti fy the i ssuance of a pr eli minar y i nj uncti on.

III. CONCLUSION S i nce HH has fai led to estab l i sh that i ts as-appli ed Fi r st Am e n d ment clai m has a better than negli gible chance of

success on the m er i ts, i t i s not enti tled to a pr eli minar y inj u ncti on. Accor dingly

, the di str i ct cour t’s deni al of the i s suance of a pr eli minar y i nj uncti on i s AFFIRMED.