Cricket Store 17, L.L.C. v. City of Columbia
676 F. App'x 162
4th Cir.2017Background
- Taboo (Cricket Store 17, LLC) opened a retail-only sexually oriented store in Columbia, SC in December 2011; it sells adult merchandise but provides no on-site entertainment.
- The City promptly reviewed adult-business regulation and, after a public presentation and a legislative record (~2,200 pages), enacted Ordinance No. 2011-105 to address alleged "secondary effects" of sexually oriented businesses.
- The Ordinance prohibits adult businesses within 700 feet of sensitive uses (churches, schools, parks, residences) and within 1000 feet of another adult business; existing nonconforming businesses received a two-year amortization period.
- Taboo continued operating during the amortization period but sued after it expired, challenging the Ordinance under the First Amendment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City, applying the Renton/Alameda framework (time/place/manner; content-neutral; substantial governmental interest; alternative avenues). The Fourth Circuit affirmed on the district court’s reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ordinance is a time/place/manner regulation or an unconstitutional ban | Taboo contended the law functioned as an effective ban at its location | City argued the Ordinance regulates location and not speech content | Court: Ordinance is a valid time/place/manner regulation (not an outright ban) |
| Whether the Ordinance is content-based or content-neutral | Taboo argued timing and council statements show targeting of Taboo’s message, making it content-based | City argued the Ordinance targets secondary effects, not the expressive content | Court: Treated as content-neutral because it targets secondary effects rather than expression |
| Whether the City had a substantial governmental interest and adequate evidence to support it | Taboo disputed the sufficiency/applicability of the City’s evidence, especially for retail-only businesses | City relied on legislative record including studies, reports, and other jurisdictions’ findings linking adult businesses to secondary effects | Court: City satisfied the relaxed Renton standard; its record was reasonably related to preventing secondary effects |
| Whether the Ordinance leaves reasonable alternative channels/locations for adult businesses | Taboo argued the Ordinance unreasonably restricted available locations and economic viability | City identified numerous alternative sites and relied on Renton’s broad definition of availability (including occupied land) | Court: Numerous available alternative sites existed; the Ordinance did not unreasonably limit alternative avenues |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 535 U.S. 425 (2002) (plurality and concurring opinions addressing treatment of adult-business regulations as content-neutral when aimed at secondary effects)
- City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) (upholding zoning-based time/place/manner regulation of adult theaters to address secondary effects)
- Imaginary Images, Inc. v. Evans, 612 F.3d 736 (4th Cir. 2010) (upholding municipal regulation of sexually oriented entertainment and explaining evidentiary deference to localities)
- D.G. Restaurant Corp. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 953 F.2d 140 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that enactment prompted by an individual establishment’s opening does not render a secondary-effects regulation content-based)