Moore-King v. COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VA.
819 F. Supp. 2d 604
E.D. Va.2011Background
- Moore-King operates as 'Psychic Sophie' offering Tarot, psychic readings, and related services from a Chesterfield County office since March 2009.
- County defines 'fortune teller' broadly and requires licensing, zoning, and permits for fortune-telling activities.
- Moore-King registered with the Commissioner of Revenue on August 6, 2009 and was assessed a $343.75 fortune teller license tax; she halted services after a consent order in January 2010.
- Her office sits in a C-3 zone where fortune tellers are not permitted; such businesses require a conditional use permit in certain other zones.
- Only property owners or their agents may apply for zoning changes; Moore-King is a tenant, limiting her ability to seek rezoning.
- Plaintiff challenges three Chesterfield codes—21-246 (zoning-related), 6-7 (permits), and 6-44 (license tax)—along with related provisions; the court later addresses ripeness and grants summary judgment for the County on several claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the as-applied challenges ripe for review? | Moore-King argues ripeness given final administrative decisions were not sought. | County contends ripeness requires administrative exhaustion under Williamson County framework. | Claims are ripe, not barred by ripeness. |
| Do the ordinances violate the First Amendment free speech rights? | Zoning and licensing restrict speech based on content/viewpoint. | Regulations are reasonable time/place/manner restrictions on commercial speech. | Regulations pass First Amendment scrutiny; no facial or as-applied violation found. |
| Do the ordinances violate the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA? | Moore-King's conduct constitutes religious exercise protected by Free Exercise and RLUIPA. | Plaintiff's practices do not amount to religious exercise under Free Exercise or RLUIPA. | County granted summary judgment; no religious exercise burden proven. |
| Do the ordinances violate the Equal Protection Clause? | Fortune tellers are treated differently from similar office uses and spiritual leaders. | Regulation of fortune tellers is rationally related to legitimate interests; distinctions are reasonable. | Equity rejected; County entitled to judgment on equal protection claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson County Reg. Plan. Bank v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (ripeness requires final decision by regulatory agency)
- Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (four-part test for commercial speech regulation)
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447 (1978) (speech regulation linked to professional regulation may be permissible)
- Singson v. Norris, 553 F.3d 660 (8th Cir. 2009) (religious exercise analysis in unconventional faiths)
- Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. 1986) (recognizing nontraditional belief systems as religion for Free Exercise purposes)