United States Sixth Circuit

Denial of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in their suit against the county challenging the constitutionality of the Tennessee Adult-Oriented Establishment Registration Act is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction on the basis that plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success in their challenges to the definitions of "adult cabaret," "adult-oriented establishment," and "adult entertainment"; 2) the district court did not err in holding that a vagueness challenge is not likely to succeed on the merits as a narrowing construction sufficiently clarifies the parts this Act allegedly contaminated by vagueness; 3) plaintiffs' claim that the Act's requirements will result in a drastic reduction in the quantity and accessibility of speech is rejected; and 4) the issue of balancing of equities is moot as the district court correctly determined that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/25/2009
• Published 11/25/2009

Judges

• Before:  BOGGS, MOORE, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  J. Michael Murray, Berkman, Gordon, Murray & DeVan, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants.  Robert B. Rolwing, Assistant County Attorney, Shelby County Government, Memphis, Tennessee, Steven A. Hart, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  J. Michael Murray, Raymond V. Vasvari, Jr., Berkman, Gordon, Murray & DeVan, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants.  Robert B. Rolwing, Assistant County Attorney, Shelby County Government, Memphis, Tennessee, Steven A. Hart, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Roane Waring III, City Attorney's Office, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellees.