King's Health Spa, Inc. v. Village of Downers Grove, 11 N.E.3d 489

King’s Health Spa, Inc. and Ace Spa, Inc. operate massage establishments in Downers Grove, Illinois.
Village’s massage business ordinance authorizes license suspension or revocation for specified acts, including prostitution by any employee on licensed premises.
Commissioner revoked King’s license after undercover prostitution investigation; Ace’s license was revoked first, then continued on remands.
Ace’s first remand vacated revocation; on remand, evidence included Agent Bauman’s testimony about broader trafficking problems.
Trial courts vacated and remanded; appellate court ultimately upheld King’s revocation but reversed Ace’s initial revocation denial on remand and reinstated the original revocation for Ace.
Court held the Commissioner did not abuse discretion in revoking either license under the village’s ordinance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation for a single act can be upheld.	King’s contends no prior violations or knowledge, so revocation is abuse.	Ordinance makes revocation available for a single prostitution incident; severity justified.	No abuse; revocation upheld as reasonable sanction.
Whether Ace’s due process claim invalidates revocation.	Ace argues lack of knowledge/notice violates due process and presumes knowledge.	Ordinance imposes strict responsibility to prevent illegal acts by employees; mitigating evidence may be considered.	Procedural due process not violated; substantive due process not implicated; mitigation considered but not dispositive.
Whether Commissioner’s reliance on mitigations and broad trafficking testimony was error.	Mitigation evidence should have reduced sanction; agent testimony was improper for Ace.	Mitigation weighed; testimony supported regulation purpose and penalties align with public interest.	No reversible error; mitigation limited weight but did not mandate lesser sanction.

Wes Ward Enterprises, Ltd. v. Andrews, 42 Ill. App. 3d 458 ( Illinois App. 1976) (massage ordinance validity for public regulation)
Clevenger v. City of East Moline, 44 Ill. App. 3d 168 ( Illinois App. 1976) (police power upheld massage regulation)
Byrne v. Stern, 103 Ill. App. 3d 601 ( Illinois App. 1981) (liquor license revocation for employee conduct upheld when no prior violations)
Hanson v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm’n, 201 Ill. App. 3d 973 ( Illinois App. 1990) (revocation cases with no prior violations discussed)
Jacquelyn’s Lounge, Inc. v. License Appeal Comm’n, 277 Ill. App. 3d 959 ( Illinois App. 1996) (no prior violations; employee conduct proscriptions)
Roach Enterprises, Inc. v. License Appeal Comm’n, 277 Ill. App. 3d 523 ( Illinois App. 1996) (revocation upheld where licensee accepted responsibility for associated violations)
Feliciano v. Illinois Racing Board, 110 Ill. App. 3d 997 ( Illinois App. 1982) (strict liability aspects distinguished by knowledge of conduct)
Spiros Lounge, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm’n, 98 Ill. App. 3d 280 ( Illinois App. 1981) (license revocation for employee misconduct)
S&F Corp. v. Bilandic, 62 Ill. App. 3d 193 ( Illinois App. 1978) (revocation upheld where licensee had knowledge of operation)
Oglesby v. City of Toledo, 635 N.E.2d 1319 ( Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (similarity to regulatory health/safety enforcement upholding broad sanction)