ILNews

7th Circuit mulls adult-business laws

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether a Southern District of Indiana judge correctly weighed evidence in granting a preliminary injunction that stopped Indianapolis from enforcing a 2002 ordinance regulating adult-business hours.

Attorneys appeared before a three-judge panel Sept. 20 to argue the 7-year-old case of Annex Books, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, Ind., No. 1:03-CV-918, which U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker ruled on in December 2009.

The case had been remanded after the 7th Circuit heard arguments in 2005. The appellate court had affirmed Judge Barker’s judgment regarding the licensing procedures set out in the ordinance but reversed on whether any substantive First Amendment issues existed. The appellate court had ordered an evidentiary hearing, and she examined whether any secondary effects were created by the ordinance that required the plaintiffs to close between midnight and 10 a.m. The judge found the city’s evidence to date is likely insufficient to meet the standard or justify the ordinance, and Indianapolis appealed that preliminary injunction.

Corporate attorney Justin Roebel for Indianapolis argued that Judge Barker created a new standard and shouldn’t have weighed the evidence, and should not be turning this case into what he described as a “battle of experts.” The city doesn’t need to provide localized evidence but can use outside-the-state data, even if it’s from much larger cities such as New York and Reno that have different demographics.

The 7th Circuit judges pressed the attorneys about the data being relied on in this case, criticizing it as being outdated and not adequate to compare the effects of the ordinance.

Plaintiff’s attorney J. Michael Murray agreed the evidence wasn’t technically clear but that it logically showed an increase in crime rather than what the city said the ordinance effect would be. Murray said more conclusive and “statistically significant” data would be presented at trial for a permanent injunction, but Roebel argued that a trial isn’t the standard and the plaintiff’s data currently isn’t adequate to be relied on.

Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook questioned that data and said this is a case that doesn’t have clear guidance. In response to an initial statement from Murray about how the previous 7th Circuit ruling from last year created a “template” for Judge Barker to use, Chief Judge Easterbrook opined about how unclear this issue is for the trial court to determine.

“I think that might be overstating the extent to which our opinion can be said to be a ‘template’ … There’s a whole passage in there that says we appreciate that we’re remanding with a completely fuzzball standard and aren’t entirely sure what it means,” he said. “But that’s what the Supreme Court has said.”

The panel took the case under advisement.
 

Rehearing "City stopped from enforcing adult-business law" IL Daily Dec. 3, 2009

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT