Patricia Moore-King v. County of Chesterfield, VA
708 F.3d 560
4th Cir.2013Background
- Moore-King challenges Chesterfield County's fortune teller regulations, including licensing, permits, background checks, and zoning restrictions.
- County code defines fortune tellers broadly and requires a specific permit, background-investigation-based permit denial, and a $300 license tax.
- Fortune tellers must obtain a conditional use permit in certain zoning districts, with additional annual license-related fees.
- Moore-King operated as 'Psychic Sophie' in a C-3 district, offering tarot readings and spiritual counseling integrated with personal inquiries.
- District court granted summary judgment for County; concluded speech was commercial or narrowly tailored time/place/manner; religion claims failed.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the regulation fits the professional speech doctrine, is generally applicable, not religiously protected, and rationally related to a legitimate interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Moore-King's counseling qualify as protected speech? | Moore-King argues her readings are First Amendment protected professional speech. | County contends fortune telling is inherently deceptive and unprotected. | Yes; professional speech doctrine applies, protecting Moore-King's personalized client counseling. |
| What level of scrutiny applies to the regulations? | Moore-King argues content-based/ viewpoint concerns require strict scrutiny. | Regulation is generally applicable licensing for a profession. | Professional speech framework applies; regulation is generally applicable and does not violate First Amendment. |
| Do the regulations burden Moore-King's religious exercise or RLUPIA claims? | Moore-King asserts a religious burden under Free Exercise and RLUPIA. | Beliefs are not religious in nature; not protected as religion. | Regulations do not burden a religion; Moore-King's beliefs are a way of life, not a religion. |
| Is there an Equal Protection violation? | Moore-King claims she is treated differently from similarly situated entities. | Regulatory scheme has rational basis; broad latitude for local regulation. | No equal protection violation; rational basis supports the regulatory scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012) (falsehood alone may not remove speech from First Amendment protection)
- Lowe v. S.E.C., 472 U.S. 181 (1985) (professional speech doctrine preserves regulation of occupations)
- Accountant's Soc'y of Va. v. Bowman, 860 F.2d 602 (4th Cir. 1988) (licensed professionals may be regulated without First Amendment concerns)
- Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (distinguishes religion from a mere way of life for First Amendment purposes)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (professional speech and state interests in regulation)
- City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976) (rational basis review for classifications not involving fundamental rights)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (any conceivable rational basis sustains regulatory classifications)