Legend Night Club v. Miller
637 F.3d 291
4th Cir.2011Background
- The Legend Night Club and The Classics operate licensed adult entertainment venues in Prince George's County, Maryland.
- In 2005 Maryland amended Art. 2B, § 10-405 to prohibit certain nude/erotic attire and conduct and certain entertainment for licensees serving alcohol, expanding jurisdiction to Prince George's County.
- The statute imposes license revocation for prohibited activities and includes a grandfather clause exempting some long-standing licensees meeting 1981-1981 ownership/approval conditions.
- Plaintiffs challenged the statute as overbroad and alleged the grandfather clause violated Equal Protection; the district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement in 2005–2009 after trial.
- The district court held the statute overbroad and the grandfather clause unconstitutional; the State and county defendants appealed; the Fourth Circuit affirmed the injunction and invalidated the statute, with a dissent.
- The majority upheld that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and not readily subject to a limiting construction; the dissent would sever the entertainment restrictions and strike the grandfather clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Md. Code Art. 2B, § 10-405 as amended overbroad under the First Amendment? | Legend and Classics argue the statute sweeps too broadly, chilling protected expression. | Defendants contend the law targets secondary effects of adult entertainment with intermediate scrutiny. | Yes; statute overbroad and not readily severable or limited. |
| Can the statute be saved by a limiting construction or partial invalidation? | Overbreadth should collapse only if a narrowing construction exists to preserve protected activity. | The statute lacks a readily apparent limiting construction that would save it. | No; not readily susceptible to a limiting construction. |
| Does the Grandfather Clause violate the Equal Protection Clause? | Grandfather Clause favors a politically connected establishment and lacks rational basis. | Clause serves typical, legitimate reliance interests; severability argued alternative. | Grandfather Clause unconstitutional;Court would sever it if permissible. |
| Should the district court have severed the Grandfather Clause and left rest of statute intact? | Severance would preserve constitutional portions of the statute. | Severance may be inappropriate depending on legislative intent. | Court should sever Grandfather Clause; remaining provisions can operate. |
Key Cases Cited
- PSINet, Inc. v. Chapman, 362 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2004) (overbreadth relief requires substantial reach of protected speech)
- Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court 1985) (overbreadth doctrine allows facial challenge to protect others)
- Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Fox, 303 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2002) (Carandola I; intermediate scrutiny for content-neutral restrictions addressing secondary effects)
- Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 470 F.3d 1074 (4th Cir. 2006) (Carandola II; narrowing construction and carve-out to save statute from overbreadth)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (Supreme Court 1973) (overbreadth sparingly used; narrowing permissible if readily apparent)