6th Circuit upholds Grand Rapids sexually oriented business ordinance
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has issued a ruling in Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 06-2168 (6th Cir. May 20, 2008)(opinion linked on the court’s website)
Findlaw provides this summary of the opinion:
In a suit seeking a preliminary injunction against an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses alleging violations of First Amendment rights, judgment on the pleadings and grant of attorney’s fees for non-city defendants is affirmed as to the preliminary injunction, but reversed as to the attorneys’ fees where: 1) the court did not convert defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment; 2) plaintiffs were not entitled to discovery that might yield evidence disproving negative secondary effects at the local level; 3) the ordinance is constitutional since it was within the city’s authority to regulate sexually oriented businesses in order to control the secondary effects of such businesses; 4) a mandatory buffer between performer and audience and a no-touching rule did not violate the right of free association; 5) an offer by private citizens to fund the defense of an ordinance, and acceptance by a local governing body, does not necessarily establish a symbiotic relationship for purposes of a section 1983 claim; and 6) for purposes of attorney’s fees, the issue of the symbiotic relationship was an unresolved point of law.
ADF allied attorneys Scott Bergthold and James R. Wierenga were involved in this litigation.