Opinion ID: 3020523
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Any lewdness or immoral activity.

Text: N.J. Admin. Code § 13:2-23.6(a)(1) (2005). The ABC enacted the Regulation to reflect “the long-standing judicial recognition that [“lewdness or immoral”] activity in conjunction with alcoholic beverage consumption can give rise to unacceptable social behavior.” 22 N.J. Reg. 1820 (June 18, 1990). ABC Director Fischer has also stated in a Certification submitted to the District Court that the purpose of the Regulation is to limit the harmful secondary effects of the combination of alcohol and “lewd or 3 immoral activity,” including overconsumption of alcohol and inappropriate physical contact between customers and dancers. The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, has construed the Regulation’s prohibition of “lewd or immoral activity” as prohibiting entertainment where “‘the predominant object and natural effect upon the observers-patrons of one portion of the performance [is] erotic excitation.’” In re G & J.K. Enters., Inc., 500 A.2d 43, 46 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985) (quoting Davis v. New Town Tavern, 117 A.2d 415, 415 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1955)) (emphasis added).1 In May of 2003, the ABC cited 181 South for three separate violations of the Regulation, which were deemed to have occurred based on an undercover investigation by the state police. Though there were alleged violations of other ABC rules and regulations, what is important here is that the state police noted three female adult entertainers on 181 South’s premises engaging in what the police determined to be prohibited activity under the Regulation. In one instance police observed an entertainer rubbing her breasts and vagina while onstage. She then proceeded to straddle a patron, pushing her breasts in his face and then rubbing her leg in the patron’s pelvic area before rubbing his inner thighs with her hands. Police also witnessed a second entertainer caressing her breasts and massaging her vaginal area onstage. They then observed that entertainer give a patron a one-on-one dance during which she straddled him and pushed her pelvic area into his pelvic area to simulate sexual intercourse. Finally, a third entertainer–from whom one of the officers received a one-on-one dance–was seen rubbing her breasts and massaging her vagina to simulate the act of masturbation. 1 When interpreting a State regulation, we generally defer to the interpretations of state trial or intermediate appellate courts. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buffetta, 230 F.3d 634, 637 (3d Cir. 2000) (“The opinions of intermediate appellate state courts are ‘not to be disregarded by a federal court unless it is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise.’” (quoting West v. Am. Tel &Tel., 311 U.S. 223, 237 (1940)). 4 Upon being cited for these violations, 181 South negotiated a payment to the ABC in the sum of $10,000 in lieu of a suspension of its liquor license.2 After it paid the negotiated fee, and prior to reopening after a renovation, 181 South filed the instant lawsuit, arguing that the Regulation is unconstitutional because it proscribes protected forms of expression and fails to make clear what conduct is or is not permitted on the premises of a liquor licensee. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of ABC Director Fischer, holding the Regulation to be constitutional.3 This appeal followed.4