Opinion ID: 2070589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Town's Authority to Prohibit Nudity at Liquor Licensees

Text: Notwithstanding our decision in El Morocco, Mario's argues that the town lacked the power to prohibit nudity at Class B liquor-licensed establishments in the town until the General Assembly enacted the 1997 amendment. This law added a new chapter 72 to title 5 of the General Laws and amended § 3-7-7.3 by expressly allowing all cities and towns to allow or to prohibit entertainment at liquor-licensed establishments like Mario's. Because nude dancing is a subspecies of entertainment, the 1997 amendment to § 3-7-7.3 expressly enabled the town to ban nude dancing at Class B liquor licensees in the town. Through its enactment of chapter 72 of title 5, the General Assembly's 1997 amendment also expressly empowered the town to license establishments featuring nude entertainment, to limit the hours of such establishments, and to designate specific areas within the town where nude entertainment would be permitted, and/or to prohibit the operation of any new such establishments featuring nude entertainment. Mario's also contends, however, that § 5-72-2(b)'s [1] any new suchestablishment language serves to exempt it from the reach of the town's delegated power to prohibit nudity at liquor-serving establishments because its nude-dancing operations preexisted the 1997 amendment. In El Marocco, however, we held that the 1997 amendment merely clarified what was already implicit in the preexisting versions of §§ 3-5-15 and 3-5-21: namely, a legislative intention to allow municipalities to impose reasonable conditions upon the holders of Class B liquor licenses. El Marocco Club, Inc., 746 A.2d at 1233. Therefore, even before the 1997 amendment, the town had the power to impose reasonable conditions (e.g., no displays of nudity at liquor-serving venues) upon the issuance of Class B liquor licenses in the town. Thus, as we held in El Marocco, the town's adoption of Ordinances Nos. 965 and 1057 were valid codifications of its preexisting power to do so. Id. at 1231, 1233. The 1997 amendment did not limit the town's power in this respect because it merely confirm[ed] that entertainment-related conditions imposed by municipalities upon the holders of liquor licenses are indeed within their preexisting power to subject the granting of such licenses to reasonable conditions. 746 A.2d at 1233. Moreover, the 1997 amendment as originally proposed would have explicitly exempted Class B liquor licensees like Mario's  those operating before the effective date of the amendment  from any municipal nudity prohibitions. But the General Assembly eliminated this specific grandfathering provision from the final version of the law. [2] Thus, we are convinced  in the words of the trial justice who first ruled on this question  that it was not the intent of the legislation as passed to grandfather [Mario's], but clearly [it] was the intent to provide for uniform application of the law throughout the town. Nor does the any new such establishment language in § 5-72-2(b) amount to a grandfathering clause for Mario's. Section 5-72-2(b) reads:  The town council shall have the power to limit the hours of operation of any such establishment and may designate specific areas within the town of Johnston where nudity on the premises where alcoholic beverages are offered for sale or consumption on the premises may be permitted and/or to prohibit the operation of any new such establishment after the effective date of this act.  P.L.1997, ch. 9, § 2. (Emphases added.) Mario's argues that § 5-72-2(b) allows the town only to prohibit nudity on the premises of any new such establishment after the effective date of the 1997 amendment. Thus, it contends, the necessary implication of this statute is that the town may not prohibit nudity at Class B liquor-licensed establishments like Mario's that were operating before the effective date of the 1997 amendment. But we held to the contrary in El Marocco when we stated that the 1997 amendment to § 3-7-7.3 merely confirmed what was already the law under G.L.1956 §§ 3-5-15 and 3-5-21: namely, that  any city or town possesses the power to restrict or prohibit entertainment (including nudity) at Class B liquor-license establishments, provided that such restrictions or prohibitions apply  uniformly to all such licensed facilities. P.L.1997, ch. 9, § 1 (Emphasis added); see El Marocco Club, Inc., 746 A.2d at 1232. We interpret the all such licensed facilities language in § 3-7-7.3 to signify a legislative intention that whatever restrictions or prohibitions a town may enact in this area must be applied both to preexisting and to new establishments  that is, to all such licensed facilities in the municipality. Thus, the changes to § 3-7-7.3 as amended by the 1997 amendment (effective March 25, 1997), refute any notion that its provisions are inapplicable to establishments like Mario's that preexisted this amendment. Indeed, before the 1997 amendment, § 3-7-7.3 authorized certain cities or towns only to restrict or prohibit entertainment at such newly licensed facilities, provided that any such restriction(s) or prohibition applies uniformly to all such newly licensed facilities. P.L.1993, ch. 374, § 1. (Emphasis added.) But the 1997 amendment to § 3-7-7.3 deleted these two previous references in the statute to newly licensed facilities, thus demonstrating a clear legislative intent that any municipal prohibition or restriction upon entertainment must be applied to all liquor licensees in the city or town, not just to new or future licensees. P.L.1997, ch. 9, § 1. For these reasons, any grandfathering provision in § 5-72-2(b) for Mario's or for other similarly situated establishments would directly contradict the Legislature's manifest intention in § 3-7-7.3 that any city or town shall have the power to regulate and/or prohibit entertainment at all such Class B establishments in the municipality and that such regulations shall be uniform[] and applicable to all such licensed facilities in the town. Id. In our opinion, the Legislature did not intend its 1997 amendment to § 3-7-7.3 to be contradicted by any actual or imagined grandfathering clause in § 5-72-2(b) of that same amendment. Indeed, it specified in § 3-7-7.3 that the municipal power to prohibit certain types of entertainment at all such licensed facilities in the town was to prevail notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or in the Rhode Island General Laws to the contrary. Id. And as we noted in El Marocco, § 3-7-7.3, as amended in 1997, grants to municipalities the specific authority to prohibit all entertainment at establishments holding Class B liquor licenses. Because Ordinance No. 1057 was passed after the 1997 effective date of § 3-7-7.3, the town unquestionably possessed the statutory authority to enact an ordinance that would effectively prevent nude entertainment at the town's liquor-serving establishments. El Marocco Club, Inc., 746 A.2d at 1231. Thus, we are persuaded that § 5-72-2(b), as enacted by P.L.1997, ch. 9, § 2 did not serve to grandfather Mario's against enforcement of the town's anti-nudity ordinances. Furthermore, as noted in El Marocco, the 1997 amendment to § 3-7-7.3 expressly confirmed that all municipalities may prohibit or restrict entertainment at Class B licensees within the municipality. El Marocco Club, Inc., 746 A.2d at 1232-33. Section 3-7-7.3 contains no exceptions or grandfathering language of any kind. Although the 1997 amendment added a new chapter to the General Laws (chapter 72 of title 5) that authorized the town to license adult entertainment establishments, see § 5-72-2(a), and to designate specific zones within the town where such establishments may be located, and/or where any new such establishments may be prohibited, see § 5-72-2(b), this latter subsection  which Mario's calls a grandfather provision  also provides that in the event the town designates zones or districts within the town where adult entertainment may be restricted, such adult-entertainment zoning or districting should be applied prospectively only vis-à-vis any new such establishments. In short, this portion of § 5-72-2(b) is nothing more than a legislative recognition that, as to the town's prospective designation of specific areas in the town allowing or banning displays of nudity on the premises, such an ordinance should apply prospectively only to any new establishments that may in the future apply for an adult-entertainment license. But the ordinances that are the subject of this litigation (Nos. 965 and 1057) are not ordinances designating adult-entertainment zones or specific areas in the town where public displays of nudity are or are not allowed. Rather, these ordinances provide for anti-nudityrestrictions or conditions on alcoholic beverage licensees and were enacted pursuant to the town's authority to do so under §§ 3-7-7.3, 3-5-15, and 3-5-21. See El Morocco Club, Inc., at 746 A.2d at 1233. For these reasons, we reject the argument that the town lacked the authority to apply any of the ordinances in question to Mario's.