600 Marshall Entertainment Concepts, LLC v. City of Memphis, 705 F.3d 576

600 Marshall is a Memphis nightclub located in the CBD where adult entertainment has been prohibited since 1993.
The Dance Hall Ordinance requires a dance permit and a $500 fee to present compensated dancers; permits require procedural steps and inspections.
In 2005, 600 Marshall applied for a dance permit indicating it would feature adult entertainment; a permit was issued with a prominent “NO NUDITY” restriction.
The permit was revoked in October 2005 after City officials determined 600 Marshall was within the CBD and ineligible; the revocation was not stayed, rendering the permit void.
On remand, the district court found pre-1993 adult entertainment could exist without a permit and that prior owners did not abandon or change use; it held nude dancing was not grandfathered and upheld the Dance Hall Ordinance’s restrictions, leading to affirmance on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Grandfathering for nude dancing	600 Marshall seeks grandfathering for preexisting nude dancing.	Nude dancing was illegal in 1993 and cannot be grandfathered.	Not grandfathered; nude dancing cannot be grandfathered as a preexisting use.
Constitutionality of the Dance Hall Ordinance (vagueness)	Dance Hall Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and may chill First Amendment rights.	Ordinance is clear; any confusion stems from officials’ misreadings, not vagueness.	Ordinance not unconstitutionally vague.
Procedural due process	Godwin’s revocation and nonrenewal violated due process.	No protected entitlement in the initial permit; no due process violation.	No procedural due process violation found.
Standing to challenge	600 Marshall has standing to challenge the Dance Hall Ordinance despite zoning protections.	Standing limited given zoning controls; challenge to the Dance Hall Ordinance is cognizable.	600 Marshall has standing to challenge the Dance Hall Ordinance.
Damages under §1983 and municipal liability	City liable for damages due to unconstitutional actions.	No constitutional violation found; no basis for municipal liability.	No damages or municipal liability established.

United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) (standing analysis and jurisdictional considerations)
Freedman v. State of Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965) (prior restraint protections for expressive activities)
Coe v. City of Sevierville, 21 S.W.3d 237 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (grandfathering when use illegal at zoning change cannot be saved)
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interest requiring due process; legitimate entitlement)
Warren v. City of Athens, 411 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2005) (due process and property interest considerations)
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) ( vagueness and unconstitutional enforcement concerns)