Court Opinion

ID: 9492705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:47:50.524085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:26.559424
License: Public Domain

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I do not dispute my colleagues’ statement of the legal principles on which they rely. I do disagree, however, with their application of those principles to the facts of this case. In my view, the acts taken by the Nevada Legislature, the Nevada Supreme Court, pursuant to a petition filed by the Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court, and the Las Vegas City Council cured the defects in the City’s earlier licensing scheme. Accordingly, I would affirm the district court’s order dissolving the permanent injunction.
The majority asserts that the language of the Las Vegas ordinance pertaining to the time within which a bookstore license must be granted or denied is “not any different from the invalid Dallas ordinance” in FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 227, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990). I disagree. The Dallas ordinance expressly provided that the chief of police would not issue a business license “if the ‘premises to be used for the sexually oriented business have not been approved by the health department, fire department, and the building official as *1116being in compliance with the applicable laws and ordinances.’ ” Id.
The Las Vegas ordinance is different. True, the Las Vegas ordinance establishes compliance with requirements of health, zoning, fire and safety as conditions precedent to issuance of a license. LVMC § 6.06A.020. But the ordinance also provides that “The Director shall issue or deny the bookstore license to the applicant within thirty days from receipt of a complete application and fees upon compliance with the requirements of this section and any applicable provisions of Title VI of this Code.” The “requirements” of the section and “applicable provisions” refer to the conditions precedent of health, zoning, fire and safety.
The crucial question is who bears the risk of a non-decision as to these conditions within the thirty-day period? The ordinance quite plainly places that risk on the Director, as the City of Las Vegas concedes in its briefs and in oral argument. In section 6.06A.025(B), the ordinance provides: “Failure of the Director to approve or deny the license application within the thirty days shall result in the license being granted.” Under this provision, the Director has thirty days in which to act on the license application. If the Director determines that the license applicant has not met the health, zoning, fire and safety requirements within the thirty-day period, he denies the license. If he determines these requirements have been met, he issues the license. If he makes no determination one way or the other, his default results in issuance of the license. Whatever decision the Director makes— denial, issuance, or no decision at all — the applicant’s First Amendment rights are protected. Within the thirty days, the applicant either gets his license or his application is denied. If his application is denied, the ordinance provides that he may file in the Nevada state court a petition for judicial relief, and if the “court has not decided the validity of the denial within thirty days after the petition is filed, the Director shall issue a temporary bookstore license.” LVMC § 6.06A.025(D). The temporary license remains in effect until the state court renders its decision. Id.
There is no First Amendment violation. I respectfully dissent.