Opinion ID: 76171
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Severability of the Adult Ordinance

Text: 17 We apply Georgia law to determine what portion of a Georgia statute, if any, survives due to a severability clause, when a portion of that statute is judicially invalidated. See Smith v. Butterworth, 866 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir.1989) (applying Florida law to determine the effect of a severability clause in a Florida statute). In Chambers v. Peach County, 268 Ga. 672, 492 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1997), the Georgia Supreme Court held that a severability clause in an unconstitutional county ordinance created a presumption that the county intended for invalid provisions not mutually dependent on other provisions to be severed, leaving the remainder of the ordinance intact. We must not, however, give to the statute an effect altogether different from that sought by it when considered as a whole. City Council of Augusta v. Mangelly, 243 Ga. 358, 254 S.E.2d 315, 320 (1979) (Hill, J., dissenting) (superseded by statute as noted in Nielubowicz v. Chatham County, 252 Ga. 330, 312 S.E.2d 802, 803 n. 1 (1984)). Accordingly, under Georgia law, we must determine whether the invalid provisions of the Adult Ordinance are mutually dependent upon any other portions of the Adult Ordinance, while at the same time preserving the original purpose of the ordinance. 18 An examination of the Adult Ordinance reveals that the entire ordinance is designed to regulate adult businesses through a licensing regime. The ordinance's substantive requirements are closely intertwined with the licensing procedure and the two cannot be separated without disrupting the obvious purpose of the ordinance. Therefore, although the Adult Ordinance contains a severability clause, we conclude that no part of the Adult Ordinance survived our decision in Artistic Entertainment, because the entire ordinance is dependent upon a valid licensing regime. 19 Because no part of the Adult Ordinance survived our previous decision, the Amending Ordinance is valid only if it stands as an entirely new ordinance. Artistic argues that the Amending Ordinance is not a valid new ordinance because it was not enacted in accordance with Georgia's Zoning Procedures Law and violates the procedural requirements of the First Amendment.