Court Opinion

ID: 9813686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:15:51.712371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:56.058704
License: Public Domain

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge,
with whom Judges DAUGHTREY and MOORE join, dissenting in part.
We join Judge Clay’s dissent concluding that the ordinance amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint on protected expression. The ordinance simply fails to provide for judicial review of a Board decision to not renew or to revoke a permit for an adult cabaret when the decision is issued “preliminary to or as a result of a criminal proceeding.” We also agree with Judge Clay that the hours of operation provision fails the constitutional standard of being “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” The ordinance therefore violates the First Amendment. Because we would invalidate the hours of operation provision on First Amendment grounds, we would not reach the parties’ Equal Protection challenge.