J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Public Safety, 31 F. Supp. 3d 933

Rule 52 is a content-neutral regulation prohibiting nudity and certain sexual activities at establishments operating with a liquor license in Ohio.
Plaintiffs—three Ohio strip clubs and a strip-club association—sued to enjoin enforcement of Rule 52’s provisions A(2), B(2), and B(3).
The district court previously enjoined Rule 52 as facially overbroad; the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding it was not facially overbroad in J.L. Spoons I.
After remand, the court conducted multiple evidentiary hearings (Dec. 2013, Apr. 2014, Jun. 2014) addressing as-applied challenges and secondary effects evidence.
Evidence included expert testimony on secondary effects (Linz; McCleary; Hanna) and undercover observations of criminal activity in adult cabarets by Agent Bouza.
The court ultimately upheld Rule 52 as applied, finding it serves a substantial government interest and leaves ample alternative channels for speech.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality under Alameda Books burden-shifting	Linz undermines State rationale for Rule 52.	Rule 52 is reasonably related to reducing secondary effects; Alameda burden met.	Rule 52 valid as applied.
Adequacy of evidence linking Rule 52 to reduced secondary effects	State evidence is insufficient and Linz undermines the link.	State relied on diverse, reasonably relevant evidence; not required to have direct empirical proof.	State evidence establishes reasonable basis; burden satisfied.
Effect of pasties requirement on speech	Pasties unnecessarily restrict expressive content; no evidence of crime reduction.	Pasties and G-strings are a minimal restriction consistent with Pap's A.M.	Pasties requirement passes scrutiny; constitutional.
Direct evidence of criminal activity in relation to Rule 52	Bouza's testimony does not prove Rule 52 reduces crime; could be other factors.	Bouza's testimony supports link between nude dancing, alcohol, and criminal activity.	Direct evidence corroborates State interest and justifies regulation.

J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. Dragani, 538 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2008) (initial ruling that Rule 52 was not facially overbroad)
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (content-neutral secondary-effects regulation may survive if tied to substantial government interest)
Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 529 U.S. 277 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2000) (pasties/G-strings may be permissible where they further government interests)
Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 535 U.S. 425 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002) (plurality opinion outlining Alameda Books burden-shifting framework)
Entm’t Prods., Inc. v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn., 721 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2013) (application of Alameda Books burden-shifting with diverse evidentiary sources)
Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Knox Cnty., Tenn., 555 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2009) (recognizes governmental interest in addressing secondary effects)
J.L. Spoons I, 538 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2008) (recognizes Rule 52 as related to secondary effects but not automatically overbroad)