Showtime Entertainment, LLC v. Town of Mendon

472 Mass. 102 (2015) · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · July 8, 2015 · No. SJC-11770

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered certified questions concerning a Mendon bylaw prohibiting alcohol sales and consumption at adult entertainment establishments. The court held that the town demonstrated a sufficient countervailing state interest in preventing crime, but concluded that the bylaw was not adequately tailored because its broad language could encompass constitutionally protected artistic performances involving nudity. The court therefore answered the first certified question affirmatively and the second negatively.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Writing for the Court
Spina, J.; Gants, C.J.; Cordy, J.; Botsford, J.; Duffly, J.; Lenk, J.; Hines, J.
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Decision date
July 8, 2015
Docket number
SJC-11770
Procedural posture
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified two questions of Massachusetts law concerning the constitutionality of Mendon's bylaw banning the sale or presence of alcohol at adult-entertainment establishments.
Standard of review
Intermediate scrutiny under the O'Brien framework for content-neutral restrictions on expressive conduct; the restriction must further an important or substantial governmental interest, be unrelated to suppression of expression, and be no greater than essential to further that interest.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answering certified questions of state constitutional law.
Parties
Showtime Entertainment, LLC v. Town of Mendon, Mike Ammendolia, Lawney Tinio
Disposition
other

Topics

free speechintermediate scrutinyoverbreadth doctrinemunicipal lawappellate procedure

Practice areas

constitutional lawmunicipal lawFirst Amendmentalcoholic-beverage regulationzoning

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the studies and other evidence considered by Mendon demonstrated a countervailing State interest sufficient to justify its ban on alcohol service at adult-entertainment businesses.
  2. Whether the alcohol ban was adequately tailored under intermediate scrutiny.

Holdings

  1. Yes. The studies considered by Mendon supplied sufficient evidence for the town reasonably to conclude that the physical proximity of alcohol service and adult entertainment produces increased crime as a secondary effect, and crime prevention is a substantial governmental interest.
  2. No. The bylaw was substantially broader than necessary because it banned alcohol service at any establishment displaying live nudity, sweeping in protected artistic performances not shown to cause the crime-related secondary effects identified by the town.

Key quotations

We answer the first question in the affirmative. We answer the second question in the negative. (at 103)
Put simply, we first examine if the restriction is overbroad. (at 114)
The town must seek other, narrower means to pursue its goal of crime prevention. (at 117)

Factual background

Mendon created an adult-entertainment overlay district and Showtime sought to operate a live nude-dancing establishment there. In response to resident concerns, the town adopted bylaws prohibiting the sale, service, or presence of alcohol at adult-entertainment establishments. The town relied on studies presented to a special town meeting indicating that alcohol in physical proximity to sexually oriented businesses was associated with increased crime. The bylaw applied broadly to establishments displaying live nudity, including potentially mainstream artistic performances.

Procedural history

Showtime sought to operate an adult-entertainment business featuring live nude dancing in Mendon. After the town enacted bylaws regulating adult-entertainment establishments, including a prohibition on alcohol service and consumption, Showtime filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief. The District Court granted the town's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the First Circuit determined that some restrictions were unconstitutional and certified the unresolved state-law constitutional questions concerning the alcohol restriction to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Remand instructions

The court answered the first certified question in the affirmative and the second in the negative, and transmitted attested copies of its opinion to the First Circuit. The First Circuit was left to resolve the federal appeal.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…