Opinion ID: 2977905
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The adult-use zoning ordinances

Text: The City contends that the plaintiffs lack standing to contest the adult-use provisions of the zoning ordinances because they cannot show that they have suffered an injury-in-fact. Specifically, the City states that the challenged adult-use provisions have never been applied to K&P, which has been able to operate its adult cabaret unimpeded by the City. The City also asserts that H.D.V. cannot claim standing because the rejection of its application for the transfer of K&P’s liquor licenses and TAP was not due to the application of the adult-use zoning provisions declared unconstitutional by the district court. We conclude that these standing arguments are meritless. To start with, the notion that the plaintiffs have not been injured by the challenged zoning provisions strains credulity. K&P’s sale of its business to H.D.V. is conditioned on the transfer of all applicable licenses and permits. The City Council’s stated reason for denying the transfer of the TAP to H.D.V. Nos. 08-1329/1361 H.D.V.-Greektown, LLC, et al. Page 9 v. City of Detroit was the purported nonconforming nature of K&P’s use of the Premises. Both K&P and H.D.V. were therefore harmed when their desired transaction was precluded by the City Council’s inaction on—and ultimate denial of—the transfer application. And even we were to accept the City’s contention that its actions toward the plaintiffs were not related to the zoning ordinances, the plaintiffs would still have had standing to challenge the ordinances due to their potential to chill First Amendmentprotected speech. The district court correctly noted that in cases where, as here, businesses protected by the First Amendment must apply for special zoning approval as a condition of operating, this renders the zoning scheme equivalent to a licensing process that effectuates a prior restraint upon protected expression. See Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 176 F.3d 1358, 1361-1362 (11th Cir. 1999) (finding standing where the plaintiff alleged that the zoning scheme in question functioned as a prior restraint on adult businesses). Facial challenges are appropriate in such situations because “every application of the [law] creates an impermissible risk of suppression of ideas.” FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 223-24 (1990) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). As this court has noted, when a licensing statute allegedly vests unbridled discretion in a government official over whether to permit or deny expressive activity, one who is subjected to the law may challenge it facially without the necessity of applying for, and being denied, a license. Such a licensing requirement constitutes a prior restraint and may result in censorship. Thus, the prior restraint of a licensing provision coupled with unbridled discretion itself amounts to an actual injury. Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, 485 F.3d 343, 351 (6th Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We accordingly reject the City’s standing challenge regarding the adult-use provisions of the zoning ordinances.