ILNews

7th Circuit upholds injunction in adult-business ordinance case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a Southern District of Indiana judge who granted a preliminary injunction preventing Indianapolis from enforcing the 2002 ordinance that regulates adult-bookstore business hours.

After hearing arguments Sept. 20 in Annex Books, Inc., et al. v. City of Indianapolis, Ind., No. 09-4156, the federal appellate court issued a per curium opinion today upholding U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker’s preliminary injunction. Judge Barker heard the case on remand from the 7th Circuit after the appellate court concluded the city of Indianapolis needed evidence about the effects of the law it enacted that required adult bookstores to be closed certain hours of the day.

At a hearing before the District Court, Indianapolis offered one piece of evidence: a study that said dispersing adult stores that sell items for off-site reading or viewing reduced crime in Sioux City, Iowa. But this article didn’t support Indianapolis’ position because it deals with dispersal instead of an hour-of-operation ordinance. The study also didn’t attempt to control for other variables.

The adult bookstores offered the arrest data from Indianapolis near its stores that showed the number of arrests didn’t decrease once the ordinance took effect. These numbers weren't subjected to statistical analysis, but the Circuit judges found they imply that the change in business hours didn’t produce any measurable benefit.

The Circuit judges also suggested the parties devote their energies to compiling information from which a reliable final decision may be made following a trial on the merits.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT