## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 05

- 1286 N EW A LBA NY DV D, LLC , P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C ITY OF N EW A LB ANY, I NDI ANA, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, N ew Alb any D ivisi on. No . 4:0 4-cv-00 05 2-SEB-WGH

— Sarah E vansBarker, Ju dge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2005

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 10, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R O OK, Chi e f Judg e, a nd R IPPLE a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . New A lba n y DVD o perat es an adul t s tor e in N ew A lb an y, I nd i ana. I t doe s no t pr ovide l ive or record ed ente rtainm en t on site. C us tom ers buy b o o k s , mag a z i ne s , o r v i de o s , whi c h the y r e a d or w atch a t ho m e. Pl ai nti ffbought l and fo r thi s o perat i on i n 2 00 3, s ec ur ed al l ne ce ss ar y l i ce ns es , a nd reno va te d the si te’ s s tor e t o m eeti ts req uir em ents. The l and w as p ro p er ly z on ed f o r th e b u sin es s itp ro p os ed to op er at e. A2 N o. 05

- 1286 fi na l i ns pec ti o n was s ch edu l ed f o r F eb r ua r y 1 9, 2 00 4. But th e C ity r efuse d to carry out th at insp ection, so plaintiff coul d not ob ta in the cer ti fi cate o fo ccupancy needed to open i ts door s. Tha tv e r y da y the Ci t y Co un c i l e na c t e d a s i x- m onth m or ato rium o n new adul t businesse s. I n M ar ch 200 4 th e C ou nc i l a m en ded th e zo ni ngr ul es t o f o rbi d a ny “s ex u ally or ien te d b u sin es s” at p lain tiff’s sit e . ( T h is p hra se includ es a boo k o r v ideo retailer ifm ore than 30 % o fi ts inventor y m eet s the Ci ty’ s defi ni ti on o f “sex ua l l y o r i en te d”; pl aint i ff’ s i nv en to r y qua l i fi es . ) The l aw pro hibi ts a s ex u ally o ri ented busi ness f ro m oper ati ng w i thi n 1, 000 feeto fa church o r any t ra ct zoned f orr esi denti aluse. P l ai nti ff’ s s tor e i s 1 75 feet from the n eares t c h u r c h and 115 feet fr om the site of a propos ed re si denti albui l ding. I n thi s s ui tu nd e r 4 2 U. S

. C. §1 9 8 3 , p l a i nt i ffc o nt e nd s tha tNe w Alb a ny ’ s o r di na nc e v i o l a t e s th e fi r s ta men dm en t (a p p lied t o t h e s ta te s b y t h e fo u rt ee n th ) be c au se it i s ba sed o n the boo ks’ and vi d eo s’ co ntent orsubj ect m att er ; bec ause i t i s inade q u ate l y j usti fi ed by proo fo f adv er se s ec o nda r y e ffec ts a nd th er efo r e ca nno t fi nd s h e lt er un d er the h oldings of L o s A n g e l e s v . A l a me da Books , Inc . , 5 35 U. S

. 4 25 (200 2), a nd R e n t o n v . P l a y t i me Thea t r e s , Inc . , 475 U
. S. 41 ( 1986 ) ; and b ecause i t i s n ot na rrow ly t ail ored to the C ity’s j us tification. Plaintiff al so ar g ue s tha t, a s a ma t t e r o fI nd i a na l a w, i ti s e nt i t l ed to oper ate f ortwo ye ar s a s a non c on form i ng use, be ca us e th e r en o va ti o ns wer e co m pl et ed be f o r e th e zo n in g or d in an c e w as am en d ed an d th e s to re w ou ldN o. 05

- 1286 3 have opened bef or e the zo ni ng change h ad the Ci ty conducted the fi nal i nspecti on o n schedul e. The di strict cour t hel d th at the o rdi nance l i kel y i s unconst i tuti onal b e c a us e no t na r r o wl y t a i l o r e d t o i t s pu r po s e . 3 6 2 F
. S up p. 2d 1015 ( S. D. I nd

. 2005 )

. The cour t al so concl ud ed that I nd i ana la w e n ti tl es pla i nti ffto the tw o- yea r gr ace per i o d. An i nj unc ti o n i ss ue d i n J an ua r y 2 00 5 al l o wi ng pla i nti ffto o pen i ts sto re . The parti es have devote d consi derabl e a tte nti on t o th e st at e- l aw qu es ti o n o n a ppea l, b utit has no c o nt i nu i ngi mpo r tb e c ause the t wo y e a r s h a v e e xp i r e d. Pl aint i ffha s be enabl e to o per at e its stor e unde r the pr o te ct i o n o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ho l di ngtha t th e zo ni ng rul es l i k el y vi o l at e th e Co ns ti tu ti o n; i t m ak es no diff er ence w hetherst ate l aw al so w ou l d have a l l owed the s tor e t o oper ate f ortwo ye ar s. The i nj uncti on s houl d not hav e i ssued, however

— at l ea st, i t sho ul d no t ha ve i ss ue d o n the g r o und tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtga ve. A l thoughAl am e da Books a nd P l a y t i me Thea tres hol d that r egul ati on o fadultbusin es ses m ust be t ai l or ed t o th e j usti fi cati on f orthe re gul ati on, thes e dec i si o ns a l so sus ta i n l aws tha t ar e no b et te r t ai l o r ed, a nd m ay w el l be m or e r est ri cti ve, than N ew A lbany’ s. S ee als o, e.g., R ichl and B ook m art, Inc. v. Kno x C ounty, 55 5 F.3d 512 (6th C ir. 2009); Fan t as yl and Vid e o, Inc . v. Sa n Diego , 505 F.3d 996 (9th C ir. 2007); M at ney v . Ke nos ha , 86 F. 3d 692 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96)

. S ee al so B en’s B a r, In c . v . S o m erset, 31 6 F.3d 7 02 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)

. Pl ai nti ffdoes notco ntend that a 1, 000- foo t disper salr equi re m ent l eave s t oo l i ttl e s pace for it ( an d other ad ult estab li sh m en ts) to operat e in por-4 N o. 05

- 1286 ti ons of the City sui ted to boo kst or es . See Il l i noi s O ne N ews, I n c. v . M arshall, 47 7 F
. 3d 461 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)

. N ew A lbany m aintain s, a nd plaintiffdoe s not d en y, th at m ore land i s available for ad ult estab li sh m e n t s tha n is pu t off l i m i ts by thi s o rdi nance. The di s t r i c tc o u r tf a u l t e d Ne w A lb a n y f o r b a n n i ng adult est abl i shm ents w i thi n 1, 000 feeto fl and zoned f or h ou sin g a n d su gg es te d t h a t a m or e a p p ro p ria te ly tai l or ed or dinance w oul d l i m i t the r ule to o ccupie d re si dences. But ther e i s no doubt that plainti ff’ s pre m i ses ar e wi thin 2 0 0 f e e t o f a c hu r c h, s o i t i s un a ffe c t e d b y the di sta nce- to- re si denti al

- l and rul e. I t i s unaffect ed , for that m att er, b y th e di ffer ence between a 1, 000- f oo t di sp er sa l r ule and a 2 50- f oo t di spers alr ule

. The di str i ct j ud ge next s u gg ested that N ew A lbany al l ow the bo okst or e t o b e n ea r a c h u rc h bu t re q u ire i t to clo se w h ile servi ces ar e be i ng hel d. Such a pri vi l ege d posi ti on f or re l igi ous wors hi p w oul d cause pr obl em s o fi ts own , se e Larki n v . Gr e nde l ’s D e n, Inc . , 4 5 9 U. S

. 1 1 6 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , unl ess th er e w er e s im ilar clo sin g re q u ire m en ts w h en sc h oo ls an d o th ers ec ul are st ab l i sh m en ts wer e o pen . N o a p p ella te co u rth as req u ire d a c ity to ad op t a ru le ofthe k i nd tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur ttho ughtn e c e s s a r y. “N ar ro w tai l or i ng” does not m ean that th e o rdi nance m ust be the l eas t r est rictive possibl e r egul ati on. S ee Wa rd v. R o ckA ga i n st R a cism , 4 9 1 U
. S

. 7 8 1 ( 1 9 8 9 )

. Wh e n s o me re gul ati on i s j usti fi ed, a ci ty has consi derabl e d iscr eti on on m att er s o fdetai l

. T h e so rto fzo ni ng r ule that N ew A lbany enacte d has be en to o w i del y use d, and too oft en su st ain ed , to b e u p se t a s “ n otn ar ro w ly ta ilore d .”N o. 05

- 1286 5 This does not m ean, how eve r, thatthe i nj uncti on m ust be r ev er se d, f o r a pr ev ai l i ng l i ti g an t i s en ti tl ed to de fen d i ts j ud gm ent o n any gr ou n d pre ser ved i n the dist ri ct cour t, ev en i fthe dist ri ct j ud ge r ej ecte d that a rgum ent. Pl ainti ffdefends i ts j ud gm ent with the ar gum ent that N ew A lbany has no t e stabl i shed that boo k a nd vi deo st o r es o ff ering only take-h om e item s c ause a ny u n to w ar d se c on d ar y e ffec ts . Th e Su p r e m e C ou rtin Alameda Books a nd P la yti m e Thea tr es hel d that pr oo fo f su c h eff ects i s e sse nti ali fm unici pal i ti es re gul ate adu lt est abl i shm ents differ entl y fro m the w ay they r egul ate othe r si m i l ar bu si nesse s

— f o r the s el l er s o fb o o k s an d m ovi es enj oy const i tuti onalpro tect i ons th at sel l er s o f snow shovel s, sho es, and parak eet s do not. I n the di s t r i c tc o ur t, Ne w Alb a nyr e l i e d o n s t ud i es conducted i n ci ti es acr oss the countr y. M any o fth ese s h o w that a conc en tration of adu lt busine sses in a p art ofa ci ty i s a sso ci ate d w ith h igh ercr i m e a nd l ower p ro p er ty va lu es n ea rb y. A s w e o b se rv ed inA nn ex B o o ks, Inc. v. Indianap olis , N o. 05-1926 (7 th Cir. Sept

. 3, 2009), h owever, thes e s tudie s princi pal l y r efl ect the e ffects o f adult b u sinesses that offerl i ve enter tai nm ent o r peep sh ow s; theydo notnece ssa ri l y dem onst ra te that bus i ne ss es s el l i ngb o o k s an d D V D s ha ve the s ame c o nse q u e n c es for m or als offe n se s (p ro st itu tio n, l ew d ex h ibit i o n ) o r o th e r k i n d s o f c r i me . N e w A lb a n y ’ s o wn expert“co nceded that he kno w s o fno re sea rch that sh ow s . . . effec ts for v ar iou s s u b c las se s o f bu sin es s e s ,” such as pla i nti ff’ s r eta i l

- onl y s tor e. 36 2 F
. S up p. 2d at10 21. R ecogni zi ng tha t pr i orstud i es had l um ped book sto re s, p eep sh ow s, an d ex otic d an cing establishm en ts togeth er,6 N o. 05

- 1286 N ew A lba n y off er ed so m e a n ec d ot al jus tific at ion s in the di str i ct c ourt
. I t ci ted t es tim ony i n so m e e ar l i ercas es by peopl e co m pla i ni ng ab out pornog ra phic l i tte r near adult boo kst or es, and i t sugge ste d that these st or es m ay expose thei r custo m er s t o thefts. The f or m er line of argu m en t rests on th e fac t that som e cu stom ers are bound to thro w away wrapp er s, wh ich m ay have i m age s ina p p ro p ri ate f orchi l dren. The “theft” l i ne o f argu m en t starts w it h th e prem ise that m an y cu stom ers ofadultes tabl i sh m en ts pay i n cash, wh i ch m ake s them a t ar getf orthi eve s. T he theft argu m en t is p atern ali stic. W hy can ’t cust om ers m ake thei r own as ses sm ents of ri sk? The nor m under the firs t a m endm ent i s that g ove rnm ent m ust co m bat ha rm to rea ders wi th di sc l o su r es r athe r tha n pr o hibi ti o ns of s p ee c h . See , e.g., Vi rgi ni a S t at eB o a r d of Phar m acy v . Virgi ni a C i t ize ns C ons um e rCounc i l, Inc . , 425 U
. S. 748 (1976 ); Am e r i ca n Books e l l e rs As s ’n v
. H udn ut, 77 1 F
. 2d 323 ( 7th C ir. 1985), aff’ d m em . , 475 U
. S. 1001 (1986). Just as th ere i s no hec kl er s’ ve to ove r speech, ther e i s no “thi eve s’ vet o.” The pol i ce m ust pro tectthe re aders fro m the hecklers orthieves, rather th an ease th eir w orkload by f orbi ddi ngthe s pee ch

. A nyw ay, i fan a du l t bo oks tor e l oca ted 200 feet fro m a ch u rc h att ra cts thi eve s, won’t a bo oks tor e l oca ted 1,500 feet fr o m a c hu rch do th e sam e? M aybe the C ity’s co nc ern i s f o r the wor sh i pper s, who may beco m e th e th i ev es ’ t ar g et s when vi deo b uy er s ar e una va il abl e. But i fthat ’ s s o, the C ity n eed s s om e e vi dence thatthefts f ro m p ass er s byar e a se ri ous pr obl em

— an d a m oreN o. 05

- 1286 7

seve re pro bl em f oro utl ets nearchu rc h es than f or o u t let s fa th er aw ay . A s t h e p lu ra lity op in ion inA l a med a Books put i t: [ A ] m un i c i pa l i t y [ c a nn o t ] g e ta wa y wi th s ho ddy data o r re aso ni ng. Th e m unici pal i ty’ s e vi dence m u st f ai rl y s up portthe m unici pal i ty’ s r ati onale f ori ts or dinance. I fpl ai nti ffs fail to castdi re ct do ubto n thi s r ational e, e i th erb y de m o ns tr at i ng that the m unicipa lity ’s ev idence does not supp or t i ts ra ti onal e o r b y furni shi ng ev i dence that disputes the m unici pal i ty’ s f actualfi nd i ngs, the m unici pal i ty m eet s the st andard setf or th i n [ P la yti m e Thea tres ]. I f p lain tiffs s u c c e ed in c as tin g d ou b t o n a m u n icip alit y’s ra t ion ale i n e i th ermanner, the b ur dens hi fts b ac kt o the m u n icip alit y t o s u p p lem en t t h e re c or d w ith ev idence r enewing su p portf ora theo rythatj usti fi es i ts or dinance. 535 U
. S. at438–39
. N ew A lbany has no t s up pli ed evi dence that “f ai rl y s up port s” the i dea thatadultbo oks tor es l o ca te d ne arc hur ch es o r r es i den ce s at tr ac t th i ev es who then s tea l fro m the l oca l deni zens as w el l as the sto re s’ c u s t o m e r s . W e d on ’t s ay th at th e C ity w ill be u n ab le to produce thi s e vi den c e, but the l ack ofgo od evi dence to this effect i n th e record

— c o u p l e d w i th e v i d e n c e i mply i ng th at t ake

- hom e a du l t s tor es do not have advers e seco nd ar y e ff ects

— is enou gh to requ ire an eviden tiary he ar i ng . Ouro pi ni o n i n Annex Books ex p an d s on t h is re aso ni ng, wh i ch need notbe re peated her e. Po r no g r aph i c l i tt eri s th e Ci ty ’ s o th er pr i nc i palb as i s. The pri nted w or d often i s t oss ed away, but l i tte r- contr ol8 N o. 05

- 1286 j usti fi cati ons have f ar ed poor ly as re aso ns to r egul ate p am p hlets a n d o t h e r w ritten m aterials. Com p are Schneide r v. State, 3 08 U
. S. 14 7 ( 1939 ) , withLo s A ng eles v. Taxpaye rs f

orVi nc e nt, 466 U
. S. 789 , 808–1 0 (1984). Pe r ha ps smutty l i tt ers ho ul d b e j ud ged bydi ffer en t st an dar ds, bu t firs t i t i s ne ce ss ar y t o kno w ho w se r i o us th e p r o b l e m i s . T h a to ne pe d o d o n t i s ti n S p o k a n e c o mplain ed abo ut l i tte r f ro m o ne bo oks tor e, se e Wor l d Wi de Vid e o of Was hi ngt on, Inc . v. Sp okane, 36 8 F
. 3d 1186 , 1197( 9th Cir

. 20 04) , does notdo m uch t o establ i sh thatthi s i s a serio us pr o bl em i n New Alba ny ( o r e ve n i n S po k ane). The vol um e o fco m plai nts e xceeds the num bero f genui ne pro bl em s. T h er e a re tho usands ofadultbo oksto re s; i t sh ou l d be e asyto fi nd o ut how m uch l i tte r th eyg en er at e, ho w m ucho fthi s l i tt erf al l s i nt o the h an d s o f m in or s, a n d w h et h er th is is a m at er ially gr eat er probl em w hen one sto re car ri es 40% ad u lt boo ks than wh en l ots o fst or es car ry10 % api ece. ( M any a co nveni ence sto re , newsstand, o r vi deo renta l o utl et has a n adult nook, wh i ch es capes re gul ati on und er N ew A lbany ’s statu te.) Plaintiffhas b een i n op erat ion f or a w hi l e no w ; i s s exual l y them ed l i tte r a p ro bl em near i ts sto re ? I fl i tte r i s a pro bl em , can i t be curt ai l ed w i thout an equal curt ai l m ent of speech? J usti ce Kennedy, wh ose vo te w as es se n ti a l to t h e jud gm en t in Al am e da Books , a nd w hose v iews ther ef or e co nsti tute the ho l ding ofthat case , stated that the red uc tion i n ad verse sec ond ary eff ects m ay notbe achi eve d j ust bycurt ai l i ng spee ch. “A ci ty m ay not ass er t that i t wil l r educe secondary effects by re du ci ng spee ch i n the sam e pr opor ti on. ” 53 5 U.S

. at44 9. N ew A lba n y’s “litt er ” jus tific at ion co m es p er ilou slyN o. 05

- 1286 9

c los e to th is, b ec au se th e am ou n t o fp or n og ra p h ic litt er m ay d ep en d l i n e ar ly on th e v olu m e o f ad u lt m ate ri al s s old . The o nl y way t o cut l i tte r by 10% m ay be to red u c e s ale s b y 1 0% , an d su c h a ju st ifica tio n w ou ld f ai l unde rJ us ti ce Ken ne dy’ s appr o ac h. N ew A lbany m ay be abl e t o re su sc itate i ts anti

- l i tte r ra ti onal e bysho w i n g th at the z oni ng l aw m ove s l i tte r to w here chi l dren ( and sensi tive p edodonti sts ) won’t see i t. Pl acing busi nesse s where they w i l l be equal l y pr oduct i ve bu t les s har m ful i s a l aw ful obj ecti ve ofzo ni ng. Al am e da Books , 53 5 U.S

. at446–47( K ennedy, J
. , co ncurr i ng)

. But, f orthi s j usti fi cati on t o w or k, i t w illbe necess ar y t o est abl i sh ( a) how m uch sex- or i ented l i tte r an adul t bo okst o r e g en erates; ( b) who i s l i k el y t o s ee tha t l i tt eri n the p arts of N ew A lbany w he re ad ult bookst o res are allo w ed to op er a t e; an d (c) h ow m u c h ad u lt litt er w ill rem ain i n N ew A lbany’ s ce ntra l busi ness ar ea ( gener ate d by adult cor ners o fo therbusi nesse s) i fpl ai n tiffi s e xi l ed to an in d u st ria l d ist ric t o r h igh w ay . Ot h er w ise ev idence abo ut l i tte r c an not supp or t the so rto fr egul ati on tha tNe w Alb a nyh a s e na c t e d. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtn ee d s t o t ak e e v id en c e a n d ap p ly interm edi at e sc r ut i ny t o New A lba ny ’ s o r di na nc e. The c as e is rem an d ed for p ro c ee d in gs co n sis te n t w ith th is o pi ni o n a nd Annex Books . Th e inj u n c tio n sh ou l d rem ain i n pla ce pendi ng the o utcom e o fthi s hea ri ng.

9- 10- 09