WCI, Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Pub. Safety, 18 F.4th 509

Background

Cheeks Gentlemen’s Club (WCI, Inc.) holds an Ohio liquor license; on March 8, 2014 undercover agents observed a dancer perform a fully nude private lap dance, prompting a citation under Ohio Admin. Code § 4301:1-1-52 (Rule 52).
The Ohio Liquor Control Commission found a Rule 52 violation and ordered WCI to pay a $25,000 fine or surrender its liquor license; state courts affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court denied review.
WCI sued in federal court alleging First Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process, and Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines Clause) violations and sought damages plus declaratory/injunctive relief.
The district court initially dismissed multiple claims; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on some claims and remanded due-process and Eighth Amendment claims for further proceedings.
On remand defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because of sovereign immunity, lack of Article III standing for injunctive relief, and cited Rooker–Feldman; WCI appealed.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal: sovereign immunity bars monetary damages against the state and its officials in their official capacities, and WCI lacks standing to obtain the prospective injunctive relief it seeks.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sovereign immunity permits WCI to recover money damages from Ohio/state officials	WCI sought money damages for constitutional violations arising from enforcement of Rule 52	Ohio argued state sovereign immunity (no consent) bars damages against state and officials in official capacity	Sovereign immunity bars WCI’s damages claims; monetary relief would come from the public treasury and is barred
Whether WCI has Article III standing to seek an injunction limiting Commission’s discretion under Due Process	WCI claimed Commission’s unbridled discretion to impose penalties creates impending due-process injuries and needs prospective relief	Ohio argued WCI alleges no certainly-impending injury and thus lacks standing for prospective relief	No standing: WCI did not allege it is violating Rule 52 or that enforcement is certainly impending; speculative threat insufficient
Whether WCI has standing to seek prospective relief under the Excessive Fines Clause	WCI sought injunction against future excessive fines as applied to strip clubs	Ohio argued WCI alleges only speculative future fines and thus lacks injury-in-fact	No standing: future Eighth Amendment violation not “certainly impending,” so injunctive relief not redressable
Whether Ex parte Young provides jurisdiction for prospective relief	WCI invoked Ex parte Young to permit suit for prospective relief despite sovereign immunity	Ohio argued Ex parte Young does not help because WCI lacks Article III standing to obtain prospective relief	Ex parte Young inapplicable here because WCI lacks Article III standing; prospective relief cannot be awarded

Key Cases Cited

WCI, Inc. v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 774 F. App’x 959 (6th Cir. 2019) (prior appeal: affirmed some dismissals, remanded due-process and Eighth claims)
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (threatened injury must be certainly impending for standing)
Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (monetary judgments against state officials in official capacity implicate the public treasury)
Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, 946 F.3d 855 (6th Cir.) (reiterating Clapper’s “certainly impending” rule for future injuries)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (federal courts may enjoin state officers prospectively, but only where Article III standing exists)