United States Sixth Circuit

In a suit challenging the constitutionality of a county ordinance that establishes licensing requirements and regulations for sexually-oriented businesses, summary judgment for defendants and partial denial of summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the ordinance is a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation aimed at preventing the deleterious secondary effects of the businesses; 2) the county met its burden of providing a reasonable evidentiary basis for concluding that its regulation would have the desired effect; 3) plaintiffs did not meet their burden of casting direct doubt on the factual findings or rationale underlying the ordinance; 4) the ordinance was narrowly tailored and not overbroad; 5) the ordinance was not an unconstitutional prior restraint; 6) state law did not preempt the ordinance's limitation on hours of operation; and 7) plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the civil disability provisions of the ordinance.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/12/2009
• Published 02/12/2009

Judges

• Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge;  KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge;  and THAPAR, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Frierson M. Graves, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellants.  Scott D. Bergthold, Law Office of Scott D. Bergthold, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Frierson M. Graves, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, Memphis, Tennessee, Michael F. Pleasants, Sr., Pleasants Law Firm, Memphis, Tennessee, Joseph J. Levitt, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellants.   Scott D. Bergthold, Bryan Allen Dykes, Law Office of Scott D. Bergthold, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellee.