Opinion ID: 626894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vague As-Applied to The Nasty Habit

Text: We begin and end our discussion with Hegwood's as-applied challenge. As this court has recognized, it is a proper exercise of judicial restraint for courts to adjudicate as-applied challenges before facial ones in an effort to decide constitutional attacks on the narrowest possible grounds and to avoid reaching unnecessary constitutional issues. Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492, 527-28 (7th Cir.2003) (citing Commodity Trend Serv., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 149 F.3d 679, 689 n. 5 (7th Cir.1998)). When we are confronted with an as-applied challenge, we examine the facts of the case before us exclusively, and not any set of hypothetical facts under which the statute might be unconstitutional. United States v. Phillips, 645 F.3d 859, 863 (7th Cir.2011). The statute at issue, Wis. Stat. § 125.12(2)(ag)(2), delineates revocation provisions regarding liquor licenses, and articulates the state's regulatory authority to license and monitor those businesses which sell alcohol in Wisconsin. [3] Specifically, the statute states that a liquor license can be revoked or suspended if a liquor license holder keeps or maintains a disorderly or riotous, indecent or improper house. These terms are not defined. [4] The statute's legislative purpose concerns the health and safety of the public, and its enforcement is aimed at public health. [5] Reviewing the allegations in the City's complaint against the Nasty Habit, we are confronted with a disturbing pattern of violence and disruptive behavior. In 2003 and 2004, the Nasty Habit saw two troublesome incidents: in one instance, a Nasty Habit employee ushered underage girls into the Nasty Habit's basement to hide from police officers conducting a bar check; on another night, a Nasty Habit employee repeatedly punched a customer in the face. The following year was more tumultuous. The Nasty Habit saw trouble twice in May 2005. First, a Nasty Habit employee fought with a customer, refused to respond to police officers at the scene, and was tasered. Later that month, Nasty Habit employees violently ejected a customer using a chokehold, resulting in a fight, and arrests. Then, in July 2005, a Nasty Habit employee, again, punched a customer in the face. Predictably, a fight broke out. November saw more trouble. On November 1, 2005, one employee was involved in a fight with a customer  when police arrived, another employee assisted him in hiding in the basement. Soon after, in January 2006, a customer was over-served and taken to the hospital for detoxification. Finally, in February 2006, there was another brawl involving Nasty Habit employees and patrons. One customer was kicked in the face, and there was a large pile-up of employees and patrons; a Nasty Habit employee was arrested. Considering this background, we cannot conclude that the disorderly house statute was unconstitutionally applied to the Nasty Habit. As the district court correctly observed, under any interpretation of the statute, the Nasty Habit is something less than [an] ideal candidate[] to challenge the boundaries of Wisconsin's disorderly house statute. Indeed, there is no doubt that the conduct described above was disorderly, riotous, indecent or improper: employees fought with patrons; brawls spilled onto the streets; underaged girls hid in the basement to escape police detection; and a patron required detoxification because he was overserved. [6] Such behavior falls squarely within the ambit of the statute, particularly given the public health and safety concerns involved.