FIFTH DIVISION Decem ber 21, 2007

No. 1-05- 2924 POOH-BAH ENT ERPRISE S, INC. , d/b/a Crazy Horse Too, Pl

ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t,
v. THE CO UNTY O F C OOK ; B AR BA RA BRU NO, Dire ct or of t he Co ok Co unt y Depa rt ment o f Revenu e; and THE CITY OF CHICAGO,

Defendan ts-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appe al fro m the Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty

Ho no r ab le Al exan der P. Whi

te, Judge Presidin

g.

JU STI CEO' MA

RA FR OS SA RDde l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Plai ntif f Pooh-Bah Enter prises, Inc., appeals the or ders that granted t he m ot ions to dismi

ss fil ed by de fendant s t he Co unt y of Co ok and t he dir ect or of it s de par t ment o f reve nue ( t he Co unt y), a nd t he Cit y of Chicag o ( t he Cit y). P laintiff's dismissed ac t ion so ught dec larat or y and in jun ctive reli ef aga in st defen dants, chal

le ngi ng the consti

tut iona li ty of thei r amus em ent tax ex emp t io ns f

o rsma ll, fin e a r t s ve nu es t ha t ex clu de ad ult en t er t ain men t ca ba r et s. On ap pe al, pla in tif f contends

that t he tax ex

em ption sch em e: (1) vi olates the f

irst am endm ent of the Uni

ted St at es Co nst it ut io n; ( 2) vio lat es t he fr ee sp ee ch cla us e o f t he I llino is C o nst it ut io n; ( 3) is
ove rbr oa d; ( 4) is vagu e; and (5 ) vio late s t he unifo rmity clau se o f the Illinois Co nst itu t ion. Fo r t he
re as on s th

at f oll ow, we re v er se th e j udgm

en t of th e c i rc ui t cou rt.1-05-2924

2 BACK GROUND The C i ty i m pos es on pa trons of an y am us em en t a ta x of 8% on th e adm i ss i on pri ce to enter, witness , vi ew, or part ic ipa te in a ny am usem ent wi thin its b oundaries . Chicago Munici pal Code §4-156-020(A) (amen ded Decem

ber 15, 2004). The County i mposes a vi rtuall y i dentic al tax a t a rate of 3%. Cook Coun

ty A m usemen t Tax Ordi

na nc e, §3 (e f

f . Apri l 1, 1999 ). The City defi nes amusement

as: "any exhibitio n, p er for mance, pr ese nt at ion o r sho w fo r e nt er t ainment pur pos es , ** * i

nc l udi ng , but not l i

m i ted to, an y the atri cal , dram ati c, m us i cal or spe ctacul ar per f orma nc e, prom

otional show, m otion pi cture show, f

l ower, poul

try or anim al show, ani

ma l a ct, circus, rodeo, athle

tic contest, sport , game or si mi la r exh ibition [or] *** any pai

d telev is ion program

mi ng." Ch ic ago Munici

pal Code §4-15 6-010(2006 ). Th e C o unt y's d efinit io n o f amusement is si mi la r. Coo k County A

mus em ent Tax Ordi

nan ce, §2 (ef f . Apri l 1, 1999 ). Eff ective January

1999, t he Ci

ty and County am

ended their am

usemen t t ax ordinances, wi th th e i nte nt to f oster th e p roducti

on of l i ve pe rf orm an ce s th at of f er th ea trical , m us i cal or cul tural enri chm ent. See City

Council J

ournal En try, Novem

ber 12, 1998, ame

ndi ng §4-156- 020 (D ); C oo k Co unt y Boa rd of Co mmi ssio ner 's Res olu t ion, No vember 1 7, 199 8, amending t he
am usem ent tax ordinan

ce. Specif

ic ally , the City and County

exem pted from the am

usem ent tax live thea t rical, live musical or ot her live cultu ra l per for mances t hat t ake place in a spa ce w ith a
maxi m um capa ci ty of not m ore than 750 pe opl e (herei

naf ter, the s mal l -ve nue ex em pti on).1-05-2924

3

Chi cago Munici

pal Code §4-156-020(D)( 1) (2006); Cook Co unty A mus em ent Tax Ordi

nan ce, §3D(1) (eff

. Apri l 1, 1999). To clarify the exem ption, am endm ents were passed i

n A pril 1999 defi ni ng live theatrical, live musical or other live cultural performance

as: "a l i ve perf orma nc e i n a ny of the di sci

pli ne s wh i ch are c omm

onl y regar ded a s pa rt of the f i ne arts, such

as l i ve thea ter, m usi c, opera , dram

a, com edy , ba l l et, m odern or t raditional

dance, an

d book or poetr y readi

ngs. The term

does not incl

ude such
amu se men t s a s a t hle t ic e ve nt s, r ac es o rpe r fo rman ce s c o nd uc t ed at ad ult entertainm

ent cabarets [as def

in ed by local ordinan ce]." Chi cago Munici

pal Code §4-156-010 (amen

ded Apri l 21, 1999); C ook Co unty A mus em ent Tax Ordi

nan ce, §2 (ef f . Apri l 1, 1999 ). The foll owing defi

ni tions are cont ain

ed in section 16-16- 030 of the City's adul t use ordinan ce: " 'Adu lt ent er t ainment c abar et ' means a p ublic or pr ivate est ablishment wh ich : ( i) fe at ur es t o ple ss da nc er s, st r ipp er s, male o rfema le imp er so na t o r s; ( ii) not i nf req ue ntl y , f ea ture s ente rtai ne rs wh o di sp l ay 's pe cif i ed an atom i cal are as ';or ( iii) fe at ur es en t er t ain er s w ho by r ea so n o f t he ir a pp ea r an ce o rco nd uc t pe r fo rm in
a manner which is de signed pr imarily t o a ppe al to t he pr ur ient int er est of t he pa t ro n o r e nt er t aine rs who eng ag e in, o r e nga ge in t he e xplic it simula t io n o f, 's peci f i ed s ex ual acti vi tie s.' 'Specif ied sex ual activ ities ' m eans and is defi

ned as: 1. Hu man ge nit als in a st at e o f se xu al s t imula t io n o rar o us al;1-05-2924

4 2. Ac t s o f hu man mas t ur ba t io n, se xu al in t er co ur se o rso do my; 3. Fo ndling o r o t her er ot ic to uching o f human genit als, p ublic re gio n, b uttock or

f em al e b re ast. 'Specif ied anatomi

cal areas' m

eans and is defi

ned as: 1. Le ss t ha n c o mple t ely a nd o pa qu ely c o ve r ed : ( a) hu man ge nit als , pu bic reg i on, (b ) buttock

an d (c ) f em al e b rea st b el ow a poi nt i m medi ate l y ab ove the top of t he ar eo la; and 2. Human male g enita ls in a discer nibly t ur gid st at e, even if co mplet ely and opaque l y cove red." Ch i cago M uni ci pal Code §1 6-16-0 30 (20 06). Si m i l ar def i ni tions of thes e sa me thre e term

s are contai ne d i n the Coun

ty' s zon i ng ord i na nc e. Cook Coun

ty Z oni ng Ordi na nc e of 2001, a rt. 14.2.1 (2 006). In 2 001, pl

ai ntif f f i l ed thi s action

f or decl aratory and i nj unc tiv e rel i ef agai nst the Coun

ty. Plai nti f f ope rate s a

n a dul t en terta i nm en t ca ba ret i n C hi cago un de r th e n am e C raz y Hors e Too, which has a maximum capa city o f less t han 75 0 pe rso ns. C ra zy Ho rse To o fe at ur es live pe r fo rman ce s o f ex o t ic d an cin g b y sc an t ily cla d w o men , wh o , du r ing t he ir d an ce s, be co me s emiclothed i n that they

rem ove m uch of thei r cl othi ng a nd d i spl ay certai n s peci f i ed an atomi cal area s. Plai ntif f' s compl ai nt chal le nged the provi si on of the sm all-v enue ex em ption that excl

udes performa nces conduc

ted at adult entertainm

ent cabarets. Pl ai

ntif f argued the ex

cl usi on violates t he firs t ame nd men t o f t he Un it ed St at es Co nst it ut io n a nd t he fr ee sp ee ch cla us e o f t he I llino is Constitution. The Ci

ty f il ed a m ot ion to in

tervene as a pa

rty def endan t because i

ts amuse me nt tax
and sm al l -ve nue ex em pti on are si m i l ar to the C ounty ’s . The

ci rcui t court gran

ted the motion
.1-05-2924

5

Plai ntif f f il ed a second amended complain t, adding f

irst amen dmen t and free speech clause clai m s ag ai nst the Ci ty. A ccordi ng to the com plai nt, af ter the s mal l -ve nue ex em pti ons were enacted, pl ai

ntif f sto pped addi

ng the am usem ent tax to t he adm

is si on fee i

t charged and b egan pa ying t he t ax it se lf un de rpr o t es t . Pla int iff so ug ht a r efu nd o f t ho se t ax es , ar gu ing t ha t t he sma llvenue exempt ions' e xclusio n of p at ro ns o f per for mances c ond uct ed a t adu lt ent er t ainment
ca ba r et s imp er miss ibly dis cr iminat ed o n t he ba sis o f co nt en t , fac ially a nd as ap plie d, ag ain st ex o t ic danc ing and o t her per for mances w ith ad ult co nt ent in violat ion o f the first amendment and t he free s peech cl ause. Pla in tif f al so argued that t he adul

t entert ai nm ent cabaret excl

usi ons were, faci ally and as appl

ie d, overbroad and vague i n vi olation of the fi rst amen dme nt and f ree speech cl ause. The Ci

ty an d County m

oved to dism

is s pl ai ntif f’ s clai ms under section 2-615 of the Code of Ci vi l Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2002)), for fai lure to state a clai

m upon wh

ic h rel ie f
may be gra nte d. Th e c i rcu i t cou rt gran ted the moti ons to di sm i ss , con cl udi ng tha t the excl us i on of adult entert ain

men t cabaret s from the sm

all -venue exem

ptions did not violate the fi rst
am endm ent, that t he f

ree speech

cl ause of the Il

li nois Constitution di

d not pro vi

de any greater prote cti on i n th i s ty peof ca se , an d that the ta

x e xe m ption s ch em eswere n ei the r ov erb road nor v ag ue . Pl ai n ti f f f i l ed a m oti on to re con si der, w h i ch wa s den i ed b y th e c i rc ui t cou rt. Pl ai n ti f f also f i l ed a th i rd am en de d c om pl ai n t, c on tai n i n g tw o cl ai m s u n der the u n i f orm i ty claus e o f the Illinois Co nst itu t ion. The City t hen move d t o d ismi ss, and t he Co unt y joined t he motion. The c ircui

t cour t dism

is sed the new c la

im s becaus e i

t found that real an

d substantial dif feren ces exi sted between sm

all, f in e arts venues

and adul t entert ai nm ent cabarets, that sim

il ar1-05-2924

6

dis t inc t io ns f

o rt ax pu r po se s ha ve be en up he ld, an d t ha t t he diffe r en ce s bo r e a r ea so na ble
re latio nship t o t he small-venu e exe mpt ion’s p ur po se o f enhancing t he Cit y's and Co unt y's reput ations in

the fi ne arts. Plai ntif f then appealed. AN AL YSIS The ci rcuit court granted defendan ts' m ot ions to dis mi ss be cause pl

ai ntif f f ai le d to state a cla im up o n w hic h r elie f may be gr an t ed
. I n r ulin g o n su ch a mo t io n, t he co ur t co nsid er s a ll we llpl eade d f acts a nd r eas onab l e i

nf eren ces i n the l i ght m ost fa vorabl e to the pl

ai ntif f
. Jackimv. CCLake, Inc. , 363 Ill . App. 3d 759, 760-61 (2005). T he onl y que stion presen

ted by a section 2-615 mot ion t o d ismi ss fo r failure t o s t at e a c aus e o f act ion is whe t her sufficient fact s ar e st at ed in t he
com plai nt wh i ch , i f true, coul

d en titl e the plai ntif f to rel i ef
. Ill in ois Graph ic s Co. v. Nickum

, 159 Ill . 2d 469, 488 (199 4). Our review of a dismi ssal un der sect ion 2-615 is de novo
. Ja ck im , 363 Ill . App. 3d at 760. First Amendment The f irst am endm ent to t he Un

ited States Constitution, m ade applic abl

e to t he states through the due process cla use of the F ourt eenth A

me ndm ent, prohib its govern

me ntal a ction that abridge s freed om o f speech. U.S . Co nst. , amends. I, XIV ; People v . Alexan der , 204 Ill . 2d 472, 476 (2003). First am

endm ent prot ections are n

ot li mi ted to the written or spoken word, but may al so ex tend to expre ssi

ve cond uct. Tex asv. Joh ns on , 491 U.S. 397, 404, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342, 353, 109S. C t. 25 33, 253 9 (1 989 ). W hi l e erotic dan

ci ng of the sor t practi ce d a t Cra zy Hors e Too enjoys c ons t itu t ional pr ot ect ion as expr essive c ond uct , it falls "only within t he o ut er ambit o f the1-05-2924

7

Fi rst Amendm

ent's prot ection." City

of Erie v. Pap's A.M. , 529 U.S. 277, 289, 146 L. Ed. 2d 265, 27 8, 120 S . Ct. 1382 , 1391 ( 2000)
. Pla int iff r ais es bo t h fa cia l an d a s- ap plie d c o nst it ut io na l ch alle ng es t o t he pr o visio ns in de fen da nt s' t ax sc he mes t ha t ex clu de ad ult en t er t ain men t ca ba r et s fr o m t he amu se men t t ax sma llvenue exempt ion. Plaint iff ar gue s t hat t he pr ovisio ns ar e co nt ent -ba sed on t heir fac e and t he
ex clu sio n o f pe r fo rman ce s c o nd uc t ed at ad ult en t er t ain men t ca ba r et s a pp lies t o pla int iff's sma ll
ven ue by referen ce to t he ex

pressi ve acti vi ty perf ormed i nsi de. A party raisi

ng a f aci al chal le nge to a l aw be ars the he av y bu rde n of de mons trati ng tha t i t i s u nc ons ti tutiona l un de r an y set of circu msta nces , w her eas a pa rt y raising an a s-a pplied c hallenge ne ed o nly show t hat , a ltho ugh t he la w ma y b e constitutional

ly applie d in

most ci rcumstances, i

t was speci fi

cally applie d to hi

m i n an unc onsti tution al man ner. Pe o ple v. Ga rvin , 219 Il l . 2d 104 , 117 (2 006). "It i s se ttled that sp eech c an

be ef f ecti ve l y l i m i ted by the exerci se of

the tax i ng p ower." Sp eis er v. Ra nd all , 357 U .S. 513, 5 18, 2 L . Ed. 2d 14 60, 146 8, 78 S. Ct. 1332, 13 38 (19 58), ci ting Gros j ea n v . A meri ca n Pres s C o. , 297 U .S. 233, 8 0 L. Ed . 660, 56 S. Ct. 444 ( 1936)
. Al though i t is constituti onal to tax f i rst am endm en t acti vi tie s i n a gen ui ne l y non di scri m i na tory fashion ( Ark ansa s Writ er s' Pr ojec t , I nc. v. R agland , 481 U.S. 221, 229, 95 L. Ed. 2d 209, 219, 107 S. Ct . 1 722 , 1 727 (1 987 )) , t he Su pr eme Co ur t in Leathers v . Medlock , 499 U.S . 439 , 113 L. Ed . 2 d 49 4, 111 S. Ct . 1 438 (1 991 ), ident ifi ed t hre e sit uat ions w her e a t ax impos ed by go ver nment w ill

t rigg er st rict scr ut iny under t he first amendment . Abse nt a co mpelling jus tif ic ation, the governm

ent ma y n ot exerci se i

ts taxin g power t o (1) singl

e out t he press, (2) target a sm

all group of speake

rs, or ( 3) disc

rim in ate on the basi s of the content of taxpay er1-05-2924

8

spe ech
. Lea

thers , 499 U.S. at 447, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 503-04, 111 S. Ct . at 1443-44. Strict
scr ut iny requ ires t he go ver nment t o s how t hat t he law is bo t h nece ssar y to ser ve a c omp elling i ntere st an d na rrowl y tai l ored to ach

i ev e tha t end
. Uni

ted St ates v. Pla

yboy Entertain

me nt Group. Inc. , 529 U .S. 803, 8 13, 146 L. Ed. 2 d 865, 8 79, 120

S. Ct. 1878 , 1886 ( 2000)
. In e xplaining t he pr oblemat ic nat ur e o f different ial taxa t ion, t he Su pr eme Co ur t , in t he context of a dis crim

in ator y tax on a certain

segm ent of pri nt medi a, stated t hat the general appl i cab i l i ty of an y bur densom e tax he l ps to en sure

that i t wi l l be met wi th wi des pread opposi tion
. But wh en such a l aw ap pli es on l y to a si ngl e con sti tuency, i t is i ns ulated f rom p oli tic al constrai nt. Mi nne apoli s Star & Tribun

e Co. v. Min

nesota Comm

is si oner of Reve

nue , 460 U.S. 575, 585, 75 L. Ed. 2d 295, 3 04-05, 103 S. Ct . 1365, 1371-72 (1983) . Speaker -based or co ntent-based t axes, ab sen t a com pel l i ng g overn

men t in terest, wi l l be struck down as a f orm of censorsh i p. Murdock
v. Co mmo nw ea lt h o f Pe nns ylvan ia , 319 U.S. 105, 116, 87 L. Ed. 1292, 1300, 63 S. Ct. 870, 876 (1943) ("a comm

uni ty m ay not suppress, or t he state tax, the diss em in ation of v ie ws beca use they
are unpo pular, annoying or dista st eful"); Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 244, 80 L. Ed. at 666, 56 S. Ct. at 447 (a gr oss receipts t ax deriv ed from advertisem

ents carried in n

ewspapers o perat ed as a restrai nt on s peec h). The Su pr eme Co ur t has a lso r eco gnized t hat co nt ent -ba sed t ax exemptionsope ra te to sup pr ess s pee ch and impli cat e st rict scr ut iny. In Speis er , 357 U.S. at 518, 2 L. Ed. 2d at 1468, 78 S. Ct . a t 133 8, wher e t he Co ur t dee med unc ons t itu t ional a C alifornia t ax pr ovisio n re quir ing
veteran s to sign a

l oya l ty oa th i n orde r to cl ai m a proper ty tax ex em pti on, the Court noted, " [i ]t cannot be gainsai

d that a discri

mi nator y den

ial of a tax exemption f

or engaging i

n speech is a1-05-2924

9

l i m i tation on f ree sp ee ch ." S i

m i l arl y , Il l i noi s c ourts ha ve rec ogn ize d the suppres si

ve na ture of sel ecti ve taxe s an d se l ecti ve tax exem pti ons, h old i ng th at they are l i m i ted by the f i rst am endm en t. Amer ica n Mu lt i-C ine ma, I nc . v. Cit y o f Wa rr en ville , 321 Ill . App. 3d 349, 354 (2001) (not in g that a selectiv e amusem ent tax o n f

ree speech wil

l trigger hei

ghtened scrut in

y un der t he f irst amendment if it discriminates o n the ba sis of co nte nt) ; Sate l l i nk of Ch i cago, Inc . v . Ci

ty of Chi cago , 16 8 Il

l . A pp. 3d 6 89, 696

(19 88)(am

us em en t tax am en dm en t tha t targ ete d sub scri

ption tel evi sion by

ex em pti ng c ab l e televi sion woul

d not wi thstan d stri ct scru tin y anal y si s). The C i ty' s a n d C oun ty' s a m us em en t tax es are ta x es of gen eral appl i ca b i l i ty , w h i ch appl y to spo rt s, t heat er s, mo vies, p aid t elevision, circu ses, and nu mero us o t her for ms of ent er t ainment unless speci

fi cally exem pted. The taxes do not singl e out t he press f

or special treat me nt or t arget a small gro up o f spea ker s. H ow ever , t he t hird c ircu msta nce t hat t rigg er s height ened scr ut iny analysis unde r t he first amendment –t hat t he t ax disc riminate s o n t he bas is of t he co nt ent of t he spe ech –i s an i ssue i n th i s ca se. Defe ndan ts argue that t hei

r amus em ent tax schem

es sh ould be deem ed content-neutral because they were not enacted with the purpose of discri mi natin g agai nst any particular expressi on. Accordin

g to defen

dants, the adul

t entert ai nm ent cabaret excl

usi ons were not enacted t o s upp re ss p ro t ect ed e xpr essio n but , r at her , be cau se t hat t ype o f venue d oe s no t furt her t he l eg i ti mate gov er n men tal pol i cy of en cou ragi n g, t h rough su b si di za ti on , s mal l -ven ue f i n e a rts performances that will en hance the Ci

ty's and County' s reput ations in the fi ne arts. Becau se those policy in terests are not related to t he content of the m essage b ei ng ex pressed, def

endan ts contend, thei r tax s chem

es s houl d be cons i dered

conten t-neu tral and, thus , stri ct scru

tin y shoul d not ap

pl y .1-05-2924

10

We di sag ree. Co nt ent -N eut ra l and Co nt ent -Ba sed Reg ulat ions A reg ulat ion is co nt ent -ne ut ra l so lo ng as it is " 'jus t ifi ed w itho ut re fere nce t o t he co nt ent of the regulated speech.' " Ward v. Rock Against Racis m , 491 U.S. 781, 791, 105 L. Ed. 2d 661, 675, 109 S. Ct. 2746, 2753 (1989), quo ting Cl ark v. Comm uni ty f or Creative Non-Violen

ce , 468 U. S. 288 , 2 93, 82 L . E d. 2d 2 21, 227 , 1 04 S . C t . 3 065 , 3 069 (1 984 ). Gene ra lly , law s t hat by their terms di stin

guis h f avored speech

from dis fav ored speech on the basi s of the i deas or vi ews ex pres sed are c onten

t-bas ed. People v . Jones , 188 Ill . 2d 352, 358-60 (1999) ( statut e that bann ed the em is si on of loud ampl

if ie d sound f

rom veh ic le s but exem

pted advertisi

ng was content-bas ed and v iolated the fi

rst amen dme nt). Laws that confer be

nef its or im pose burdens on s

peech wi thout ref eren ce to the i deas or viewsex

pres sed are i n m ost i nstanc es c onten

t-neu tral
. Turner Bro adc ast ing Syst em, I nc. v. Fe der al Co mmunicatio ns Co mm'n, 512 U.S . 622 , 643 -44, 129 L. Ed . 2 d 49 7, 518 -1 9, 114 S. Ct . 2 445 , 2 459 -6 0 ( 199 4) (st rict scr ut iny did not app ly to re quir ement that cabl e systems m

ust carry f

ull power local

broadcast stations becaus e the provis ions depended onl y on the operator' s ch

an ne l capa ci ty, n ot the con tent of program m i ng)
. The first amendment do es no t gene ra lly co unt enanc e go ver nmenta l cont ro l over t he
con ten t of mes sa ge s expres se d by

pri va te i nd i vi dua l s b ec au se each pers on s hou l d de ci def or hi m sel f or hers elf the i deas and be l i ef

s de serv i ng of ex pres sion, considerati

on, an d adh eren ce. Turner Broadcasting Sy

stem, Inc. , 512 U .S. at 641, 1 29 L. E d. 2d a t 517, 114

S. Ct. at 245 8. Thus, content-based regul ations are presum

ptivel y i nva li d ( R. A .V . v . C i

ty of St. P aul , M i

n n es ota , 50 5 U . S. 37 7, 38 2, 12 0 L
. E d. 2d 30 5, 31 7, 11 2 S
. Ct
. 25 38 , 25 42 ( 19 92 ) ) an d w ill be u ph eld1-05-2924

11

only if necess ary to serve a com pelli ng governm

ental in terest and narrowly

drawn to achi eve that end ( Widmar v. Vincent , 454 U.S. 263, 270, 70 L. Ed. 2d 440, 447- 48, 102 S. Ct. 269, 274 (1981 )). Altho ugh t he go ver nment's pur po se is t he co nt ro lli ng co nsider at ion in det er mini ng co nt ent neutrali ty, the m ere assertion of

a content-neutral purpose wi ll not save a law "whi

ch, on i ts face, discri mi nates based on cont ent." Turner Broadcasting Sy stem, Inc. , 512 U.S . at 642- 43, 1 29 L. Ed. 2 d a t 518 , 11 4 S. Ct. a

t 245 9. S eealso Jones , 188 I ll . 2d at 361-62. The fact that d efendan ts'
sm al l -ve nue ex em pti ons m ay ha ve be en i nten ded to se rve conten t-neu tral goal s i s n ot dis posi tiv e. The Suprem

e Court has repeatedly

stated t hat " '[i]ll

ic it legi sl ative

in tent is n ot the sine qua non of a violation of the First Am endm ent.' " Si mon & Sch uster, In c. v . Mem bers of the N ew York State Cri me Vi cti m s Boar d , 502 U.S. 105, 117, 116 L. Ed. 2d 476, 488, 112 S. Ct. 501, 509 (1991), quo ting Mi

nn ea pol i s S tar & Tri bu ne Co. , 460 U.S. at 592, 75 L. Ed. 2d a t 309, 103 S. Ct. at 1376. We theref

ore reject defen

dants' contention that t he ex is tence of a content-neutral pu r po se r en de r s t he t ax o r din an ce s a t iss ue he r e c o nt en t - ne ut r al. The langua ge o f the definitio ns fro m the C ity's ad ult use or dinance and t he Co unt y's zoni ng ordin ance, wh ic h were i ncorporat ed i

nto t he Ci ty's and County

's respec tive s ma ll -venue exem pti on s, estab l i sh

es th at th e adul t en ter tai n men t ca b aret ex cl us i on s, on

th ei r f ac e, di scri m i n ate bas ed o n co nt ent . S pe cifica lly, t he d efinit io ns in t he a mus eme nt t ax o rd inanc es o f live thea trical, live musical or other live cultural performance(Ch i cago M uni ci pal Code §4 -156-0 10 (20 06); Co o k C o unt y Amuse ment Ta x Or dina nce , § 2 ( eff. Apr il 1, 19 99 )) re fer enc e t he d efinit io n o f adult entertainment cabaret

co nt ained w ithin t he Cit y's adu lt u se o rd inance o r t he Co unt y's zo ning1-05-2924

12

ordi na nc e (C hi cago M un i ci pal Code § 16- 16- 030

(20 05) ; C ook C oun

ty Zon i ng Ord i na nc e of 2001, Art. 14.2. 1 (2006)). Bo th the Ci ty's adul t use ordinan

ce and the County

's zoni ng ordin ance define an adult entertainment cabaret by the c ont ent of t he exp re ssio n feat ur ed a t t he estab l i sh men t, e.g. , to ple ss dan

ci ng, strippi ng, entertain

ers who di spl ay

specifi ed anatomi

cal areas (exces si ve bre ast or buttocks sk

i n expos ure), etc. Ch

i cago M uni ci pal Code §1 6-16-0 30 (20 05); Co ok Co unt y Zoning O rd inance o f 200 1, ar t . 1 4. 2. 1 ( 200 6) . C ons equ ent ly, rea d t og et her , t he ope rati ve l an gua geof thos e ord

i na nc esexcl ude s f rom the am us em en t tax sm al l -v en ueexem ption t ho se amu se men t s t ha t ar e d efin ed , inso far as ap plie d t o pla int iff, by se mi-n ak ed er o t ic pe r fo rman ce ar t o rex pr es sio n. On e c an no t de t er mine w he t he rt he o pe r at ive cr it er ia o f t he ad ult ent er t ainment c abar et exclus ions a pply t o a par t icular small venue w itho ut co nsider ing t he co nt ent of th e smal l v en ue ' s f ea tur ed sp ee ch or e x pr es si v e c on du ct. De f en da nts are not a i de d b y the i r ci tati on to Lea thers , w her e t he Su pr eme Co ur t fou nd tha t an A rka ns assta tute e xte nd i ng the ge ne ral l y appl i ca bl e s al estax to ca bl e s erv i ce s ( bu t not sa tel l i te s erv i ce s) , wh i l e m ai nta i ni ng ex i sti ng exem ptions f or m ag az i ne s a nd ne wspa pe rs , di d n ot rai se f i rst am endm en t conce rns . Lea thers , 499 U.S. at 453, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 508, 111 S. Ct. at 1447. T here, the Co urt deter mi ned that t he Arkansas sal

es tax was not content -based because
no t hing in t he st at ut e r efe rr ed t o t he co nt en t o f mas s me dia co mmun ica t io ns. Mo r eo ve r , ca ble t elevision o ffered subs cr ibers a mixtur e o f news, informat ion, and e nt er t ainment a nd t her e wa s no record eviden

ce that such m

aterial dif fered s ys tematic ally

in its m essage f rom that comm

unicated by satel l i te broad cast program

m i ng, n ews pape rs, or m agazi ne s. Lea thers , 499 U.S . at 449, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 505, 111 S. Ct. at 1445. Here, in c ontrast, defen dants' adul

t entert ai nm ent cabaret1-05-2924

13

ex cl usi ons a re con tent-b ase d an

d the conten t of the perf orma nc es f eature d at suc

h c ab arets d

i f f ers sy stem ati cal l y i n i ts eroti c m

ess age f rom th at com m uni cated b y the exem pt fi ne arts ven ues . Compell in g Inter est A cc ordi ngl y , b ec au se

the dif f ere nti al tax on e rotic dan cei s a con ten t-b as ed reg ul ati on on pr ot ect ed e xpr essio n, it is pre sumpt ively i nvalid and may be u pheld o nly i f it is nece ssar y to ser ve a compel li ng state in

terest and narrowly

drawn to achi eve that end. Becaus e defe ndan ts argued on appeal , unsuccess ful

ly , that t hei r tax schem

es were content-neutral, they did n ot argue that their tax s chem

es serve d a compel

li ng state in

terest in order to survi

ve a f irst am endm ent strict
scru tin y anal y si s. A l tern ati ve l y , de f en da nts arg uetha t the i r ad ul t en terta i nm en t ca ba ret exc l us i ons do n ot prohib it or restrict exotic danci ng but, rather, are governm ental policy to encourage, through
su b si di za ti on , the p rod

uc ti on of i n n ov ati v e f i n e a rtsperf orm an ce s a t sm al l v en ue s i n an ef f ort to enhanc e t he Cit y's and Co unt y's rep ut at ions in t he fine ar t s. D efenda nt s co nt end t hat new a nd in novativ e shows h ave a greater chan

ce of be in g chosen f

or pro duction on Broadway or t o t our nationa ll y. Moreover, such s

hows m ay have the added ef

fect of drawi

ng ne w restaurants, shops
an d h otel s to th e s ur rou n di n g c om m un i ty . D ef en da n ts a rgue th at th e m ost ef f i ci en t wa y to subs idize small, fine ar t s venu es is t o g ive the ir pa t ro ns an e xempt ion fro m the a musement t ax, beca use it r elieves small venue s o f the administr at ive and financial bur dens t hat flow fro m having to collect the tax from patro ns and rem it it to t he Ci

ty and County at specif

ied tim es. Defe ndan ts argue that st ate action that in terferes i s di ff

erent from

state action that encourages an

al ternative a

ctivi ty based on publ

ic policy . Citi

ng Re ga n v . Ta x ati on W i th1-05-2924

14

Re pre senta ti on of W ashi ng ton , 461 U .S. 540, 7 6 L. Ed . 2d 129 , 103 S. Ct. 1997 (19 83), Rus t v. Sull iv an , 500 U.S. 173, 114 L. Ed. 2d 233, 111 S. Ct. 1759 (1991), and Na ti ona l Endow men t f or the Arts v. Fi

nley , 524 U.S. 569, 141 L. Ed. 2d 500, 118 S. Ct. 2168 (1998), defen dants argue th at th ei r ta x sch em es are c on siste

n t wi th Su pr em e C our t rul i n gsth at a l l ow th e g ov er n men t to selectiv ely fund a program to encourage cer tain activi ties i t believes to be in the publ ic i nterest wi thout at the s am

e ti me f und i ng a n a l terna tiv e progra m . We di sag ree. Regan , Rust , and Fi

nl ey do n ot es tab l i sh

tha t the govern men t ca n e nc oura geone pri va te spe aker ov

er a noth er b as ed on content or message without im pli cating f irst amen dmen t co ncerns. Regan hel d that an i nternal revenue statut e that pro hi

bi ted tax exem

pt charitabl

e orga ni za ti ons f rom us i ng tax -de duc

ti bl e c ontr i bu ti ons to su ppor t the i r lobb y i ng ef f orts d i d n ot vi ola te the f i rst am endm en t, whi ch did not req

ui re Con gres s to sub sidi

ze l obby i ng. Regan , 461 U. S. at 546 , 7 6 L. Ed . 2 d at 137 , 1 03 S . C t . a t 200 1. Fur t her mor e, t he st at ut e did no t violat e t he eq ual pr otecti on

com pon en t of th e f i f th am en dm en t, b ec au se i t wa s rati on al f or C ongr es s to de cid e t ha t , ev en t ho ug h it wo uld no t su bsid ize su bst an t ial lo bbying by ch ar it ies ge ne r ally, it
woul d sub si

di zel obb y i ng by ve tera ns ' or ga ni za ti ons gi ve n ou r cou ntr y's l ong -s tan di ng pol i cy of
com pensati ng v eterans f or thei r past contri

buti ons b y provi di ng th em wi th n um erous a dva ntag es. Regan , 461 U .S. at 550-5 1, 76 L . Ed. 2d a t 140, 103 S. Ct. at 200 3-04. Unlike t he t ax o rd inances be for e us , C ong re ss in Regan did no t dis cr iminat e in vid io us ly in gr ant ing its e xempt ions, which we re not aimed at sup pr essing a ny ideas. Vet er ans' o rg anizat ions were enti tled to receive

tax-deductibl

e contributions regardle ss of the content of an y s peech they
m i gh t us e, i nc l udi ng l obb y i ng . Con gre ss coul d e xe

m pt veteran

s' orga ni za ti ons f rom taxati on1-05-2924

15

di f f eren tly than i t di d ch ari tabl e organ izations as l

ong a s the

ex em pti on wa s n

ot conten t-bas ed. Regan , 461 U .S. at 548, 7 6 L. Ed . 2d at 13 8, 103 S . Ct. at 2002
. Regan did n ot uphold, or even addre ss, d i scri m i na tion between spe ech or express i

ve acti vi tie s b ase d on c onten

t. In Rust , 5 00 U .S . a t 178 -8 0, 114 L. E d. 2d a t 246 -4 7, 111 S. Ct . a t 176 4- 66, re gulat ions pr o hibit ed r ec ipie nt s o f fed er al fu nd s a pp r o pr iat ed fo rfamily- pla nnin g s er vic es fr o m en ga gin g in
cou n se l i n g c on cern

i n g, r ef er ra l s f or, a n d acti v i ti es ad v oca ti n g a b orti on an d r eq ui re d th e rec i pi en ts to mai ntai n s epara te f aci l i tie s, person

ne l and acc ounti

ng r ecords f rom a ny ab ortion acti vi ty. T ho se r eg ula t io ns d id n o t vio lat e fir st ame nd men t fr ee sp ee ch r igh t s be ca us e t he go ve rnme nt did
n ot discri m i n ate on th e b as i s of

v i ew poi n t. Th e g ov er n men t merel y ch ose to f un d on e acti v i ty to the excl us i on of an othe r, a nd the reg ul ati ons si m pl y ensu red tha t f ed era l f un dswere n ot us ed f or acti vi tie s, i nc l udi ng s peec h, that were

outsi de th e sc ope of

the f edera l program. Rust , 500 U.S. at 193, 11 4 L. Ed . 2d at 25 5, 111 S . Ct. at 1772 . In c ontras t to o ur cas e, Rust co ncer ned t he disseminat ion t o t he pu blic of a sp ecific go ver nment mes sag e t hro ugh a foc use d go ver nment sub sidy program that pa i d organ izations to distri

bute the g overn

men t's m ess age. Rust di

d n ot involve enc ou ra ging se lect ed p rivat e sp eec h by privat e cit izens exe rc ising the ir first amendment ri ghts
. Rust , 500 U.S. at 199, 114 L. Ed. 2d at 259, 111 S. Ct. at 1775. Defend ant s' re liance o n Rust is mi splac ed be cau se t hat cas e involved t he go ver nment spe ech d oc t rine r at her t han go ver nment r egu latio n of p rivat e sp eec h. I n acc or danc e wit h t he gov er n men t sp ee ch doctri n e, wh en th e g ov er

n men t i tse l f i s s pe ak i n g or i s p ay i n g a th i rd pa rty to speak to the publi

c on the go vernm

ent's behal

f, the government's m

essage is n

ot subj ect t o first
ame nd men t r es t r ict io ns. T his d o ct r ine fo llo ws fr o m t he simp le fa ct t ha t t he firs t ame nd men t aims1-05-2924

16

t o p ro t ect citize ns' free spe ech fr om g ove rnment inter fere nce. Lat er , in Rosen berger v . Rector & Vis it o r s o f t he Un ive r sit y o f Vir gin ia , 515 U .S. 819, 1 32 L. E d. 2d 70 0, 115 S . Ct. 2510(1995 ), t he Co ur t re iter at ed t he po int t hat t he co nst itu t ional r egu latio n of sp eec h discu ssed in Rust di d n ot app ly to a go ver nment- cr eat ed p ro gr am to enco ur age pr ivate spe ech, but was lim ited t o s itu at ions where the govern men t di sb urs ed publ i c f i nds to p ri va te spe akers

to transm

i t sp ec i f i c i nf orm ati on pertai ni ng to the gove rnm en t's own program. Rosenbe

rger , 515 U.S. at 833, 132 L. Ed. 2d at 718, 115 S. Ct. at 2519 (where student organizati ons were subs idi zed by a state univ

ersi ty but were not agents of the uni versi ty, the student organiza

tions' subsi diz ed speech

was pri vate speech rathe r than governm en t spee ch and, thus , not exem

pt fr om f i rst am endm en t protecti on). In Fi nley , 524 U .S. at 581-8 3, 141 L . Ed. 2d a t 512-13, 1 18 S. C t. at 2175-7 6, the Court uphel d a grant program provis ion that i mpl em ented the consi

deration of dece

ncy and respect st anda rd s whe n det er mini ng which a rt pr ojec t s wo uld r ece ive go ver nment s ubsidies . T he provisi on was f aci ally constitutional

because it did not place condi

tions on gran

ts or pr ecl

ude
awar ds to proj ects th

at m i ght b e dee

med i nde cen t or dis resp ectf ul
. Fi nley , 524 U.S. at 581-83, 141 L . Ed. 2d a

t 512-13, 1 18 S. C t. at 2175-7 7. A n y con ten t-b as ed con si dera ti on s ta ken i n to acc ou nt in the g ra nt -mak ing pr oc ess w er e a c ons equ ence of t he nat ur e o f art s funding w her e t he gove rnm en t agen cy 's mandate was to make a

estheti c j udgm

en ts. Fi nley , 524 U.S. at 585-86, 141 L. Ed. 2 d at 514 -15, 11 8 S. Ct. at 21 77-78
. Th e C ourt, h owe ve r, re i tera ted tha t i f the prov i si on was applied so as t o discrim in ate based o n " 'certain i

deas or viewpoints' " ( i.e. , in a content-based
man ne r ) o rif t he de ce nc y o r r es pe ct st an da r ds we r e a n e nfo r ce d r eq uir eme nt , t he pr o visio n w o uld then be sub j ect to stri ct scru

tin y revi ew. Fi

nley , 52 4 U .S. at 5 87 , 14 1 L . Ed . 2d at 5 16 , 11 8 S . C t.1-05-2924

17

at 2178-79, quo ting Sim

on & Schus

ter, I nc. , 502 U.S. at 116, 116 L. Ed. 2d at 487, 112 S. Ct. at 508. As discussed above, defen dants' adult entert ain

men t cabaret excl

usions di scrim

in ate against pr otected sp ee ch b as ed on con ten t. Regan , Rust , and Fi

nley do not sup po rt defend ant s' co nt ent ion t hat affirmative go ver nment p olicies e nco ur aging s elect ive pr ivate spe ech d o no t impli cat e t he first amendment and thereb

y e scape strict scrutiny

anal ys is . Moreo ver, we f

in d no compel

li ng state in

terest which necessi tat es the cont ent-based adult enter tainm ent cabaret e xcl

usions contained i

n defen dants'
amuse ment t ax sc hemes. Defend ant s ar gue t hat t hey have a legit imate int er est in enhancing Ch ica go 's a nd Co o k C o un t y's r ep ut at io ns in t he fine ar t s. We do no t dis ag r ee wit h t his pr o po sit io n; h o we ve r , t he ir in t er es t s d o no t r ise t o t he lev el o f a c o mpe lling s t at e in t er es t t ha t will jus tif y, un der the fi rst amen dme nt, a content-based restriction on protected expressi on. See Mi nn ea pol i s S tar & Tri bu ne Co. , 460 U.S. at 586, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 305, 103 S. Ct. at 1372 (rai si ng r ev en ue i s n ot a com pel l i ng i ntere st suf

f i cien t to with stan

d stri ct scru tin y ). CONCLUSION Acco rd ingly, we ho ld t hat t he Cit y's and Co unt y's adu lt ent er t ainment c abar et exclus ions from the am usem ent tax sm

all-v enue ex em ptions are content-based regul ations on spe ech that do
no t se rve a c o mpe lling s t at e in t er es t an d, t he r efo r e, vio lat e t he firs t ame nd men t . Giv en t his hol di ng , we do n ot rea ch pl ai nti f f 's cl ai m s th at the ta x s ch em esare un consti tutiona l l y ove rbroad or vagu e o r vio late t he unifo rmity clau se o f the Illinois Co nst itu t ion. We re ver se t he o rd er s o f the t r ial c o ur t t ha t gr an t ed de fen da nt s' mo t io ns t o dis miss fo rfailu r e t o st at e a cla im and r ema nd t his cause for further pr oceedings. Reversed a

nd rem anded. FITZ GERA

LD SM ITH, P.J., a

nd TU LL Y, J., c oncu

r.1-05-2924

18