Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In a case by four firms defined as "adult entertainment businesses" under a revised Indianapolis ordinance alleging that the ordinance violates their First and Fourth amendment rights, judgment of the district court is affirmed to the extent that it sustained the licensing procedures but is reversed to the extent it concerns the coverage and substantive requirements. The case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the city has evidence that the restrictions actually have public benefits great enough to justify any curtailment of speech. Here, none of the studies on which the city relied before enacting the law, and none introduced in the record, concerned that kind of ordinance, nor did the studies show that an increase in adult businesses' operating hours is associated with more crime. Because books (even of the "adult" variety) have a constitutional status, and laws requiring the closure of bookstores at night and on Sunday are likely to curtail sales, the public benefits of the restrictions must be established by evidence, and not just asserted.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
Argued September 8, 2005
Decided September 3, 2009