Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 926 F. Supp. 2d 1039

Judgment upholds constitutionality of Chapter 807 of the City-County Code regulating adult entertainment.
Case tried on Oct 17–19, 2012 addressing First and Fourteenth Amendment issues after remand.
Ordinance defines an adult bookstore by 25% threshold of space, stock, or weekly revenue from adult products.
Ordinance requires licensing, nighttime and Sunday closures, and specific booth and lighting rules for video booths.
Seventh Circuit remanded for evidentiary hearing to address First Amendment concerns; court conducted full trial with developed evidence.
Court applies intermediate scrutiny under Alameda Books and assesses link between speech and secondary effects using crime data.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City’s evidence establishes substantial connection to secondary effects	Annex Books argues evidence insufficient to link stores to secondary effects.	City contends crime data shows affected areas share adverse effects and justify regulation.	Yes; City showed a reasonable basis for linking stores to secondary effects.
Whether the Ordinance’s restrictions meaningfully reduce speech beyond necessary	Stores claim ordinance unduly restricts expressive material and harms speech.	City contends reduction is narrowly tailored to address secondary effects with limited impact on speech.	Yes; regulation satisfies intermediate scrutiny and is not overly broad.
Whether crime data reliability undermines the City’s showing	Data reliability and coding issues undermine conclusions about crime reductions.	City supports reliability with underlying police reports and hotspot analyses; data sufficiently robust.	No; City’s enhanced analysis and expert testimony adequately address concerns.
Whether the City’s use of post-2003 hours restriction and Sunday closure is narrowly tailored	Hours-based restriction is broader than necessary to achieve goals.	Hours limitation is consistent with precedent and reduces harm while preserving speech avenues.	Yes; hours restrictions are narrowly tailored to achieve substantial interest.

Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 535 U.S. 425 (U.S. 2002) (recognizes intermediate scrutiny standard for secondary effects)
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1986) (limits on speech must be within substantial governmental interest)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (speech regulation must be narrowly tailored and justified by substantial interest)
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (U.S. 1976) (speech access and public interest in dissemination)
Andy’s Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. v. City of Gary, 466 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2006) (upholds hours restrictions on sexually oriented businesses)
Schultz v. City of Cumberland, 228 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholds 10 a.m.–midnight operating hours for sex businesses)
Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 581 F.3d 460 (7th Cir. 2009) (remand on First Amendment issues; discussed evidentiary standards)
Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 624 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirmed district court findings on intermediate scrutiny after remand)