Opinion ID: 2585470
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standingfacial challenge

Text: ¶ 82 Dr. John's facially challenges Midvale's ordinance governing licensure of sexually-oriented businesses as being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. While I concur that Dr. John's lacks standing to mount a facial challenge, I base my decision on a different analysis than Judge Jackson. Judge Jackson concludes that Dr. John's lacks standing to mount a facial attack on the Midvale ordinance because it has not shown that the ordinance has any deterrent effect on expression. However, Judge Jackson does not address the full scope of the ordinance in making his determination. Because Dr. John's challenges Midvale's ordinance facially, I believe we must look at the full scope of the ordinance when making this determination because different standing rules apply if a facial challenge involves First Amendment protections. ¶ 83 Midvale's ordinance requires adult bookstores, adult video stores, adult motion picture theaters, and other such businesses to obtain a sexually-oriented business license before operating. Midvale City, Utah, Code §§ 5.56.010, 5.56.040 (1998). Because some books, magazines, periodicals, films, and videos depict[ing] or describ[ing] sexual activities or specified anatomical areas, id. § 5.56.010(A)(2), have been afforded some First Amendment protection, I believe Dr. John's facial challenge encompasses First Amendment rights. ¶ 84 When facial challenges are made on First Amendment grounds, normal standing requirements do not strictly apply. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. v. City of Littleton, 311 F.3d 1220, 1226 (10th Cir.2002). Nevertheless, to have standing in this context a party must still `demonstrate its own cognizable injury in fact.' Id. at 1227 (quoting Nat'l Council for Improved Health v. Shalala, 122 F.3d 878, 883 (10th Cir.1997)). [T]his requirement is satisfied where the [party] is engaged `in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution.' Id. (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979)). While Midvale's ordinance may encompass protected speech, I do not believe that Dr. John's itself is engaged `in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest.' For this reason, I concur that Dr. John's lacks standing to mount a facial challenge to Midvale's ordinance. ¶ 85 According to the trial court's findings of fact, Dr. John's sells hundreds of sexual devices, [1] along with some candles, lotions, and lingerie. Additionally, it also sells a few sexually-explicit videos, books, and playing cards, but the number of these items are minimal in comparison to the other products sold by Dr. John's. Since the sale or rental of sexual devices yields no First Amendment protections, FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 253-54 & n. 5, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), for the simple reason that such products express[ ] nothing, Yorko v. State, 690 S.W.2d 260, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (Teague, J., dissenting) (citations omitted), Dr. John's is not engaged `in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest.' ¶ 86 The mere inclusion by Dr. John's of some videos or books in its store's inventory does not alter this analysis because the minimal number of such items in its inventory in comparison to the constitutionally unprotected products sold by Dr. John's is insufficient to vest it with a constitutional interest. To conclude otherwise would mean that any business could mount a facial challenge to such licensing ordinances if it simply included a magazine rack with a few pornographic magazines on its premises. This would be contrary to standing requirements, especially since such a party could not reasonably be expected properly to frame the issues and present them with the necessary adversarial zeal. Sec'y of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 956, 104 S.Ct. 2839, 81 L.Ed.2d 786 (1984) (citation omitted). Hence, Dr. John's lacks the requisite injury in fact to mount a facial challenge.