Opinion ID: 867331
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Analysis of Section 13-1422 Under the First Amendment

Text: ¶ 8 Under the First Amendment, regulations that target speech based on its content are typically subject to strict scrutiny. United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000); State v. Evenson, 201 Ariz. 209, 212, ¶ 13, 33 P.3d 780, 783 (App.2001). The federal courts, however, have carved out an exception to this rule: Certain time, place, and manner restrictions designed to address the secondary effects of speech are subject to intermediate scrutiny. E.g., Renton, 475 U.S. at 48-50, 106 S.Ct. 925; Deja Vu of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Trs., 411 F.3d 777, 789-90 (6th Cir.2005); Ctr. for Fair Pub. Policy v. Maricopa County, 336 F.3d 1153 passim (9th Cir.2003). ¶ 9 Finding such regulations justified by the goal of reducing secondary effects rather than suppressing speech, the Supreme Court initially characterized such regulations as content neutral. See, e.g., Renton, 475 U.S. at 49, 106 S.Ct. 925. More recently, however, federal courts have begun to acknowledge that secondary effects laws directed exclusively at adult businesses are not truly content neutral. See City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425, 448, 122 S.Ct. 1728, 152 L.Ed.2d 670 (2002) (Kennedy, J., concurring) [3] (noting that ordinances restricting adult businesses are content based); id. at 455, 457, 122 S.Ct. 1728 (Souter, J., dissenting) (noting content correlation); Ctr. for Fair Pub. Policy, 336 F.3d at 1164 (calling hours regulations restricting sexually oriented businesses quite obviously content based). ¶ 10 Nonetheless, the federal courts continue to apply a form of intermediate scrutiny. Alameda Books, 535 U.S. at 448, 122 S.Ct. 1728 (Kennedy, J., concurring); Ctr. for Fair Pub. Policy, 336 F.3d at 1166. Under the federal test, a statute will be upheld if it is designed to serve a substantial government interest, is narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and does not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication. Ctr. for Fair Pub. Policy, 336 F.3d at 1166 (citing Renton, 475 U.S. at 50, 106 S.Ct. 925). ¶ 11 Applying this test, several federal courts have upheld statutes imposing hours of operation restrictions on sexually oriented businesses against First Amendment challenges. E.g., Deja Vu of Cincinnati, 411 F.3d at 791 (6th Cir.); Schultz v. City of Cumberland, 228 F.3d 831, 846 (7th Cir. 2000); Ctr. for Fair Pub. Policy, 336 F.3d at 1166-70 (9th Cir.); Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 176 F.3d 1358, 1365 (11th Cir.1999). ¶ 12 Soon after A.R.S. § 13-1422 became effective, a coalition of adult businesses challenged the statute in federal court, asserting that its hours provision violates the First Amendment. Ctr. for Fair Pub. Policy, 336 F.3d at 1158. Applying the Renton test, the district court upheld § 13-1422 and denied injunctive relief. Id. at 1158-59, 1171. Affirming, the Ninth Circuit found the intermediate scrutiny test satisfied. It concluded that § 13-1422 serves a substantial government interest, id. at 1166; is narrowly tailored because Arizona's interest in ameliorating secondary effects `would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation,' id. at 1169 (quoting Colacurcio v. City of Kent, 163 F.3d 545, 553 (9th Cir.1998)); and leaves open alternative channels for communication by allowing stores to remain open seventeen hours per day Monday through Saturday, and thirteen hours on Sunday, id. at 1170. ¶ 13 Judge Canby dissented, arguing that the majority misapplied Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Alameda Books. Id. at 1171-72 (Canby, J., dissenting). He noted that Justice Kennedy would prohibit reduc[ing] secondary effects by reducing speech in the same proportion. Id. at 1172 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Alameda Books, 535 U.S. at 449, 122 S.Ct. 1728 (Kennedy, J., concurring)). Therefore, because the closure of bookstores  at best [] achieves a one-for-one elimination of speech and secondary effects, Judge Canby would have held the statute unconstitutional. Id. at 1173.