The H onorab le Ru ben C ast il lo, Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t Court  f or the Northe rnDis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 11

- 1999 S CO TT H E GW OO D , et al., P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. C ITY OF E AU C LAIRE , et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09 C350

—Wi ll iam M. Co nley, Chief Ju dge .
A RGUED J AN UA RY 20, 2012

— D ECIDED A PRI L 9, 2012

B efore F L A U M an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges , a nd C AST IL LO, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  F LAUM , Cir cu i tJudg e . T h e Na s t yHab i tS a l o o n ( the “N asty Habi t”) , a popu l arbaro perat i ng i n Eau Clai re , W iscons in, lost i ts li qu or l icens e after a series ofaltercati ons between i ts em plo yee s a nd i ts cu sto m er s r e-2 N o. 11

- 1999 quir i ng pol i ce inter venti on. The N asty Habi t’ s l i cense w as revoked pu rsu an t to W is. Stat. § 125.12(2)( ag)(2), w hi ch pro vi de s th at a l i quor l i cense can be r evo ked o r su sp en d ed if th e h old er “k ee p s or m ain ta in s a d iso rd er ly o r r i o t o u s , i n d e c e n to r i mp r o p e r h o u s e . ” S c o t tH e g wo o d, an ag en t o f th e N as ty H ab it, ch alle n ge s t h e “ d iso rd er ly h ou se ” s ta tu te ar g u i n g t h at it is u n c on st itu tio n ally vague. The di str i ct c ourtr ej ecte d H egwood’s ar gum ents. F o r th e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, w e a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und Thi s di s pu t e a r o s e o uto fa c t i o n t a k e n b y the Ci t y o f Eau C lai re , W i sco nsi n ( the “ City ”) ag ainst the N asty Ha b i t, a po pu l a r b a r a mon gthe c o l l e g e - a g e d c r o wd. Despit e i ts pop u l ar i ty, a num bero fr aucous i nci dents cau sed the C it y c onc ern. Spec ificall y, d uring 2005, there wer e r epe at ed di sturba nc es i nv o l ving dr unkpat r o ns and fi ghts between custom er s a nd N asty Habi t e m plo yees . On Se p te m b er19 , 20 05, H egwood m et w i th Ci ty offi c i a l s t o di s c us s the i r c o nc e r ns r e g a r di ngthe o pe ra ti o n o fthe Nasty H ab i t. The Ci ty ’ s wor r i es i nc l ude d the N as tyHab i t’ s f ai l ur e to ha ve uni f o r m ed empl o y ee s, a nd i ts f ai l ur e to pr o per l y t r ain i ts e m pl o yees an d m aintain a c u stom erhead- count. A fterthe m eet i ng, H egwood agr eed to m ake cer tain changes

. On Nov embe r 1 , 2 005 , po l i ce wer e ca l l ed to i nt er ve ne i n a n a l te r ca ti o n b etwee n a n un r ul y c ustom er and the bar ’ s s taff

. Fo l l owing that i nci dent, o n Decem ber21 , 20 05, th e Ci tys en t H eg woo d a l et te r c o nc l udi ng th at th e N asty Habi t was a “d iso rd er l y ho use” as defined byN o. 11

- 1999 3

Pur s uan tt o s t atut e, “[ t ] he c ounc i l s hal l ha ve the m ana ge m en t 2 an d con tro l of the city p ro p erty , finan ces, high w ay s, na v iga b le (co n tin u ed ...) st atut e, a nd c at al o g ui ng seve r ali nc i den ts s uppo r ting its conc lu sion. Pu rsu an t to W is. Stat. § 125.12(2)( ag)(2), a liq u or lic e n se h old er m ay h av e it s lic en se rev ok ed if the l i cense hol der “ kee ps orm ai nt ain s a dis or derl y o r ri oto us, in d ecento r i m properhouse

. ” The l ett eral so not ed th at d esp ite the p rom ise ofcha ng e, th e bar’s pol i ci es had not no ti ceably i m prove d. The C ity gave an ul ti m atum : v ol unt ar i l y c l o se f o r thr ee wee k s o r the C i ty woul d se ek su spe ns i o n o r r ev o ca ti o n o f th e bar’s al coholl i cense bef or e the Ci ty’ s Ad m i ni str ati ve Revi ew Board. H egwood r ej ecte d the o ffero fa tem pora rysuspen si o n. U n for tu n at ely , th e s itu at ion atth e N as ty H a b it d id not i m prove . On J anuary23, 2 006, a custo m erwas sent to the ho spi talf ordeto xi fi cati on, and so on a fter w ar d, on Febru ary 11, 2 0 0 6 , anot he r fight broke ou t at the bar, aga i n i nvol vi ng bo th st affand patr ons. On M ar ch 1, 20 06 , th e Ci ty i ss ue d a su m m o ns and com pla i nt, fi l ed by Ch i efo fPol i ce J erry M aty si k a nd Ci ty Att o r ne y S te phe n Ni ck, s ee k i ngr ev o ca ti o n o r s us pen si on o fthe N as ty H abi t’ s Com bi nati on Cl ass B I ntoxi cating Li quor & Fe rm en ted M al t Beve ra ge l i cense. The co m p lai nt al l ege d that Nasty H abi t e m plo yee s kept a “ diso rder l y ho use” as defined by W i s. Stat. § 12 5. 12 ( 2) ( ag ) ( 2) , a nd the r eb y po se d a thr ea t to the heal th, sa fety, and w el f ar e o fthe pu bl i c under W i s. S tat
. § 62
. 11 ( 5)
. The Ci ty ’ s co m pl aint was ba se d on ei g ht

24 N o. 11

- 1999

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 wate rs , an d the publ i c s er vi c e, an d s hal l ha ve power to act for the gov ernm ent and good order ofthe ci ty, f or i ts com m erc ial benefit, and for the health, s afety, an d w elf are ofthe pub li c, an d m ay carry ou t its p ow ers b y license, reg u l a t ion , sup p ression , b or ro w ing of m on ey , tax levy , ap p ro p riatio n, fine, im p risonm en t, c onfiscati on, an d othe r ne c es s ar y orc onve ni en t m ea ns . The power s he reb y confer re d s hal l be i n a ddit i on t o a l l othe r gr ant s , an d s hal l be l i m i t ed only b y ex pre s s l ang u a g e.” W is. S ta t. § 62 .11 (5 ). i nci dents wh i ch oc curr ed bet w ee n N ove m ber20 , 20 03 a nd F e b r ua r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6
. T he maj o r i t y o fthe i nc i dents, ho wev er, r el at ed to eve nt s dur i ngthe l at e spr i nga nd sum m ero f20 05, al lof w hi ch r equi re d som e l eve lo fpol i ce i nt er ve nt i o n. The c o m pl aintpr i m ar i l y de ta i l ed fi gh ting b e t we e n p a t r o n s , b o u n c e r s , a n d o th e r N a s t y H ab i te mplo ye es. The Ci ty Councilco nd ucted an a dm i ni str ati ve he ar i ngo n the c o m pl aint, a nd s ubs eque nt l y r ev o k ed th e Nas t y Hab i t ’ s a l c o ho ll i c e ns e , conc l ud i ngtha ti tk e pt orm ai ntai ned a “di sor derl y ho use” i n vi ol ati on o fst ate l aw . A n appeal o fthe revoc ati on was fi l ed, but dism i sse d by sti pu l ati on s o t h at N asty Habi t, Inc. co uld s el li ts barbusi ness. Fo llow in g t h e a p p ea l’s d ism iss al, H e g w oo d filed su it i n the W es te r n Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n a l l eg i ngr et al i at i o n, denia lo fequalpro tect i on, and du e pr oce ss vi ol ati ons. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d d e fe n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent in i ts entir ety
. H egwood now app eal s, but l i m i ts hi s chal l enge to hi s a l l ege d du e pr oc es s v i ol ati ons.N o. 11

- 1999 5 I I . Discussi on W e r evi ew the const i tuti onal i ty ofa sta tute, a questi on of l aw , de n ov o. U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 64 4 F
. 3d 553 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ). H eg w oo d ch alle n g e s t h e W isc on sin st atut e o n two g r o unds , ar g ui ngtha t the st atut e i s unc o nsti tuti onally v ague both on i ts f ace, and as appli ed to th e N as tyHab it. Sp ec i fi ca l l y, he c o nt en ds th ati ts v ague l anguage r endered co m plia nce i m possibl e, and enf or cem ent a rbi tr ar y. T h e void for va gu en es s d oc tr in e res ts on t h e ba sic d u e p ro c es s p rin c ip le th at a law is u n c on st itu t i o n a l if its p ro h ibit ion s a re n otcl e ar ly d efin ed

. Sherm an ex rel
. Sherm an v. Koch , 6 23 F
. 3d 50 1, 5 19 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. The du e pr oce ss cl ause, tho ugh, does notd em and “perfect c lar ity and preci se gui dance. ” Wa rd v . Ro ckA ga inst R a cism , 49 1 U.S
. 78 1, 79 4 ( 1989 ). R ather, a sta tute i s only u nc o ns ti tu ti o na l l y v ague “ i fi t f ai l s to de fi ne th e offen se w ith su ffici en t d efi niten ess th at ord inary peopl e ca n und er sta nd wh at c on du ct i s pro hibi ted an d i t f ai l s to e st ab l i shs ta nda r ds to per m i t en f o r ce m en t i n a no narbi tr ar y, nondi scr i m i natory m anner .” Fu ller ex re l
. Fu l l e rv. D eca t urPub l i c Sc hool Bd. of Educ
. Sch. D i s t
. 61 , 251 F.3d 662 , 666 (7th C ir. 2001).

A . V agu e A s-A p p li ed t o Th e N asty H ab it W e be gi n and end our disc ussi on with H egwood’s as appli ed chal l en ge . A s thi s co urt has r eco gni zed, “i t i s a p ro per exer ci se ofj ud i ci alr est ra i nt f orco urts to adj ud i cate as - appli ed chal l enges befor e f aci al ones i n an6 N o. 11

- 1999

W isc o n sin h a s th is au th o ri ty p u rs u a n t to W is. S ta t. § 62 .11 (5 ). 3 Tho ugh w e m ust exe rc ise cauti on w hen consul ti ng a dic- 4 tio n a ry fo r p la in m ea n in g , U n ite d S ta te s v . C o st ello , 666 F. 3d 10 40 , 10 43 -44 (7th C ir. 20 12 ), w e no te the follo w ing d efinition s: “rio tou s”

— “in the nature o f a ri ot; turbulent ” ; “disor

d erly ”

— “co nd u ct offensiv e to p u b lic ord er” ; “in d ecen t”

— “gross ly i m prop er o r o ffen siv e” ; “i m prop er”

— “n ot in ac c or d with pr opr i ety, m odes t y, goo d m ann er s , or goo d taste
. ” S eeM ERRI AM -W EB S TE R D I CT I ONA RY O NL I NE , Dic

- (co n tin u ed ...) eff or t t o deci de const i tuti onalat tack s o n the narr owest p ossible groun d s and to avoid reach ing un ne cess ary const i tuti onal issues
. ” D oe v. Heck, 32 7 F
. 3d 492, 52 7- 28 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( ci ti ng C om m odity Trend Se rv. , Inc. v. C om m odity Futures Trad e C o m m ’n , 14 9 F
. 3d 679, 68 9 n. 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )
. W he n we a r e c o nfr o nt e d wi th an a s - a pp l i e d c ha l l e ng e , we e xa mi ne the f a c t s o f the cas e bef or e us excl us ive ly, and not any s et ofhypothe ti cal f ac ts unde r whi ch t he s ta tu te mightb e unc o ns ti tu
tio n al. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Phi l l ips , 64 5 F
. 3d 859, 86 3 ( 7th C ir. 2011). The s ta tu te ati ss ue , W i s. S ta t. § 1 25
. 12 ( 2) ( ag ) ( 2) , de l i neat es re voca ti on pro vi si ons re gar ding l i quor l i censes , and art i cul ate s the st ate ’s regula tory a uthor i ty to l i cense and m oni torthose bu si nesse s which s el lal cohol i n W i sco nsi n. S peci fi cal l y, the sta tute sta tes thata 3 l i quor l i cense can be r evo ked o r suspende d if a l i quor l i cense hol der “ kee ps orm ai nt ain s a dis or derl y o r ri oto us, i nd ecento r i m properhouse

. ” These te rm s a re not defi ne d. The s ta tu te ’ s legi sl at i ve pur po se c o nc erns the

4N o. 11

- 1999 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 ti onary, htt p://w w w . m erri am - w ebst er. com ( las t vi si ted Ap ri l 5, 2 0 1 2 ). The “Ge ne ra l Pr ovi s i ons ” s ec t i on ofW i s . St at
. § 12 5, “Al c oho l 5 B ev era g es”, states in p art, that th e leg islatu re inte nd ed to p ro v id e “re g u lato ry au t h o rity
. . . for the b en efit of the p u b lic health and w el f are. ” § 125. 01. he al tha nd s afety o fthe pub l i c, a nd i ts e nf o r ce m en t i s ai m ed atpub l i c he al th

. 5 R evi ewi ngthe a l l eg at i o ns i n the Ci ty ’ s co m pl aint aga i nst the N asty Habi t, we are c onfro nted w i th a distu rb in g p at te rn of vio len c e a n d d isr u p tiv e b e h a v ior. In 2 0 0 3 a n d 2 0 0 4 , th e N a s t y H a b i ts a w t wo t r o u b l e s o me i nc idents: i n one i nstance , a N asty Habi t e m plo yee ushere d u n d erage gi rl s into the Nasty H abi t’ s ba sem ent t o hi de fro m pol i ce o ffi cer s co nd uctin g a b archeck; on an ot h er n i g h t, a N as ty H ab it e m p loy ee rep ea te d ly pu nched a custo m erin t he f ace. The f ol l owing yea r w as m or e t u m u ltu ou s. T h e N as ty H ab it s aw tro u b le tw i ce in M ay 2005
. Fi rs t, a N asty Habi t e m plo yee f ought w i th a custo m er, r efused to r es pond to pol i ce offi cer s a t the sc ene, and w as tas er ed . L ate r that m onth, N asty Habi t e m plo yee s v i ol entl y ej ecte d a custom er using a choke hold , resultin g i n a fi gh t, an d arr es ts
. T he n, i n J ul y 2 00 5, a Nas tyHab i t empl o y ee , a g ain, punc he d a c us to m eri n the f ac e. Pr edi ct ab l y, a fi g ht b r o k e o u t
. N o v e mb e r s a w mo r e t r o u b l e . O n N o v e mber1, 200 5, one em plo yee was i nvol ved i n a fi ght with a cust om er

— w hen po lice ar ri ved, ano therem plo yee as si ste d hi m i n hi ding i n the base m ent. So on after, i n8 N o. 11

- 1999

M oreover, H egw ood w as pu t on no tic e thatthe City was 6 c onc er ne d aboutthe even t s at the Nas t y Habi t, ye tthe fi ght i ng conti nued and the poli ci es thattr oub le d the City rem ained un c ha ng e d. J anuary20 06, a custo m erwas ov er - ser ved and tak en to the hosp ital for d etox ification. Finally, i n Feb r ua ry 20 06 , th er e w as an ot h er br aw l i n v olv in g N as ty H ab it em p loy ee s a n d p at ro n s. O n e c u s t om er w as kic ke d in the f ace, and ther e was a l ar ge pil e- up o fem plo yee s a nd p a t r o ns ; a Na s t y Hab i te mpl o y e e wa s a r r e s t e d. Co ns i de r i ngthi s b a c k g r o un d, we ca nn o tc o nc l ud e th at th e d iso rd er ly h ou se st at u te w as u n c on st itu tio n ally ap p li ed to the N asty H abit. A s the dist r ict cou rt co r r ec tly o bserv ed, unde ra ny i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe st atut e, the Nas tyHab i t i s “s o m ethi ng le ss tha n [ an ] i dea lc an di dat e[ ] t o c ha l l en ge th e bo unda r i es o fW i sc o nsin’ s di sor der l y ho us e st atut e. ” I nde ed, the r e i s no doubt thatthe conduct d es c ribed abo ve w as diso rder l y, ri oto us , ind ecento r i m proper : em plo yee s fought w i th p at ro n s; b ra w ls s p illed on to th e s t r e e ts ; un d er ag ed girls hi d in the b a s e ment t o e s c a pe p o l i c e de t e c t i o n; a nd a p atron requ ired d etox ific ation bec au se he w as overse rv ed

. Su c h be h av io r f a lls sq u ar ely w ith inth e a m b it

6 ofthe sta tute, part i cul ar l y given the pu bl i c heal th a nd s a fe t y c o nc e r ns i nv o l v e d.

B. Faci al V agueness T o s u c c e e d o n a f a c i a l v a gu e n e s s c h a l l e n g e , a c o mp lain an t m u st d em on st ra te th at th e la w is im p er m iss iblyN o. 11

- 1999 9

va gu e in all of its a p p lica tio n s. Village o f Ho ffm a n E stat es v. Flips ide, Hoffm an E st ates, Inc. , 455 U
. S. 4 8 9 , 497 (1982). A s we have conclud ed that W i s. S tat
. § 125. 12( 2) ( ag) ( 2) i s no t unc o ns ti tu ti o na l l y v ague i n i ts as - appl i ed co ntext w i th r ega rd t o the Nasty H abi t, ther e i s no need to exam i ne H egwood’s f aci alat tack; it c annot succee d as w e h av e id en tifie d th at th e s ta tu te is su fficie n tly defi ne d i n a t l ea sto ne a ppl i ca ti o n.

I V . Concl usio n Forthe for ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct cour t’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants.

4- 9- 12