Opinion ID: 774351
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standing to Challenge Specific Provisions of the Ordinance

Text: 44 A plaintiff may have standing to challenge some provisions of a law but not others. See 4805 Convoy, 183 F.3d at 1112-13. Here, Lakewood argues that Clark lacks standing to challenge the licensing requirements for adult cabaret owners, managers and entertainers because those provisions have not caused injury to Clark. 45 a) Licensing of Adult Cabaret Owners 46 Clark challenges the Ordinance's requirement that each owner of a cabaret must be issued a license, LMC§§ 5.16.040, as an unconstitutional prior restraint. We agree with Lakewood that Clark lacks standing to challenge this provision because he cannot satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. At the time he filed this lawsuit, Clark already had a license to operate an adult cabaret. Enjoining the new-license provision would therefore have had no effect upon Clark. If Clark was subject to any future threat of injury from Lakewood at that time, that threat would have arisen from the procedure for license renewals under LMC §§ 5.16.060. See 4805 Convoy, 183 F.3d at 1112 (holding plaintiff lacked standing to challenge adult cabaret licensing requirement where it already held a license, but had standing to challenge renewal provisions); DLS, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 107 F.3d 403, 413-14 (6th Cir. 1997) (same). Clark, however, did not challenge the renewal provisions of the Ordinance as unconstitutional, so we need not address whether he would have had standing had he done so. 47 Clark correctly argues that his situation is distinguishable from Convoy because he has indicated his desire to move to another location and this would require him to seek a new license. There is, however, an additional barrier to Clark's seeking a new license. As Clark stated in his declaration, There is a moratorium ordinance in effect in the City of Lakewood that prohibits the licensing of new adult uses in the City. But for that ordinance, I would be actively attempting to relocate my business. Clark, however, never challenged the moratorium in this, or as far as we can tell, any lawsuit. If, as Clark himself declares, the moratorium is the reason he did not apply for a new license, then the district court could not redress his alleged injury in this lawsuit. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-62, 568-571. The moratorium is an intervening, unchallenged event that prevented the district court from granting Clark the relief he requested at the time he filed this suit. 6 48 b) Licensing of Adult Cabaret Managers and Entertainers 49 Clark also challenges the Ordinance's licensing provisions for adult cabaret managers and entertainers, arguing the provisions are facially overbroad prior restraints. Clark alleges the licensing scheme here is facially unconstitutional because there is no requirement that a decision to issue or deny a license to a manger or entertainer be made within a brief, specified and reasonably prompt period of time, there is no stay from a decision upholding a license denial and there is no right to prompt judicial review and decision. Lakewood contends that Clark, the only plaintiff in this suit, does not have standing to bring claims based upon the third-party rights of his employees, none of whom has applied for or been denied a license. We disagree. 50 Under well-settled law, there is no doubt an adult cabaret manager or entertainer could facially challenge these regulations whether or not he or she had applied for and been denied a license. [O]ur cases have long held that when a licensing statute allegedly vests unbridled discretion in a government official over whether to permit or deny expressive activity, one who is subject to the law may challenge it facially without the necessity of first applying for, and being denied, a license. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ'g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 755-56 (1988); see also Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 151 (1969); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 56 (1965). A licensing scheme, adult or otherwise, can vest unbridled discretion in a decisionmaker where the scheme fails to place limits upon when a decision-maker must make a determination. To an unsuccessful license applicant, the unavoidable delay is tantamount to an effective denial of First Amendment rights. See FW/PBS, 493 U.S. at 224-25; 4805 Convoy, 183 F.3d at 111; Baby Tam, 154 F.3d at 1100. 51 We conclude the alleged defects in Lakewood's licensing scheme create a risk of delay that could unnecessarily foreclose expressive conduct and arbitrarily deny First Amendment rights. See FW/PBS, 493 U.S. at 226-27. Therefore, these provisions can be facially challenged without having to apply for and be denied a license. 52 The question, then, is whether Clark as the employer of actual or potential managers and entertainers -without whom he cannot operate his business -should have standing to challenge these provisions on behalf of his employees. The answer to this question invokes not only the Article III requirement of injury in fact, but also the prudential considerations that limit the challenges federal courts are willing to hear. See Sec'y of State v. Joseph H. Munson Co. , 467 U.S. 947, 955 (1984) (discussing prudential consideration that, generally, a plaintiff must assert his own legal rights). Under the overbreadth doctrine, these prudential considerations have weighed in favor of allowing litigants to bring First Amendment challenges on behalf of those whose expression might be impermissibly chilled, so long as the plaintiff also suffers an injury in fact. The Court in Munson explained: 53 Even where a First Amendment challenge could be brought by one actually engaged in protected activity, there is a possibility that, rather than risk punishment for his conduct in challenging the statute, he will refrain from engaging further in the protected activity. Society as a whole then would be the loser. Thus, when there is a danger of chilling free speech, the concern that constitutional adjudication be avoided whenever possible may be outweighed by society's interest in having the statute challenged. Litigants, therefore, are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute's very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression. Id. at 956-57 (internal quotation omitted); see also 4805 Convoy, 183 F.3d at 1112 ([A] plaintiff may challenge an overly broad statute or regulation by showing that it may inhibit the First Amendment rights of individuals who are not before the court.). 54 An overbreadth challenge is appropriate here because there is a credible risk the Ordinance could cause self-censorship and chilling of expression. For example, instead of subjecting themselves to the alleged unconstitutional licensing scheme, managers and entertainers might choose to engage in their professions in other cities where their livelihood is not dependent upon the issuance and maintenance of a license. Managers might decide they cannot afford to wait 21 days before they can start working or that they cannot risk losing their job if the city revokes their license. Additionally, employees might be concerned about the Ordinance's requirement that they disclose their home address and phone number. Entertainers might be especially concerned about the risk that cabaret patrons could obtain such personal information and harass the entertainers at their homes, or worse. See LLEH, Inc. v. Wichita County, 121 F. Supp. 2d 513, 525 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (holding requirement that adult entertainment employees must disclose their home address and phone number is unconstitutional); N.W. Enters, Inc. v. City of Houston , 27 F. Supp. 2d 754, 840-41 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (same). For these reasons, there is a risk cabaret employees will engage in self-censorship and avoid participating in protected activity in Lakewood. We hold this is a sufficient basis to relax the prudential standing requirements and allow Clark to bring a facial overbreadth challenge to the licensing of managers and entertainers. See Munson, 467 U.S. at 956-57. 55 With that said, Clark still must meet the requirements for overbreadth standing: injury in fact and ability satisfactorily to frame the issues in the case. 4805 Convoy, 183 F.3d at 1112 (quoting Munson, 467 U.S. at 958); see Cole, 228 at 1099. In Munson, a professional for-profit fundraiser challenged a Maryland law that restricted charities' ability to use more than 25 percent of the money they raised to pay expenses. Munson, 467 U.S. at 950. The Court held that even though the fundraiser's own First Amendment rights were not at issue, it had standing to bring an overbreadth challenge on behalf of its client charities because it suffered a financial injury from the statute. Id. at 958. 56 Clark has stated a similar threat of specific future harm. Under the Ordinance, the owner of an adult cabaret cannot operate his business without having licensed employees present at all times. See LMC §§§§ 5.16.040(B), 5.16.050(C)(1). Therefore, if the City of Lakewood fails to license Clark's employees, Clark would be unable to resume his business and engage in expressive activity. As in Munson,the activity sought to be protected is at the heart of [Appellant's] business . . . . 467 U.S. at 958. Accordingly, Clark has established a constitutionally sufficient injury in fact. 57 Clark also satisfies the second overbreadth standing requirement: that he can satisfactorily frame the issues in the case. Clark has a vested interest in having the Ordinance overturned. If he is successful in his challenge to these provisions, he would be able to resume his once profitable business and might also be able to recover damages and attorney's fees. Additionally, Clark has been an aggressive advocate in this matter so far -in motion practice, discovery and on appeal -and has satisfactorily framed the issues in this case. In sum, Clark meets the standing requirements for bringing an overbreadth challenge to the manager and entertainer licensing provisions of the Ordinance.