Zibtluda, LLC v. Gwinnett County Ex Rel. Board of Commissioners (2005)

The district court here also cited, among others, our decision in Zibtluda, LLC v. Gwinnett County, in which we observed that “[t]he Supreme Court has made clear that when the purpose of an adult entertainment ordinance is to ame- liorate the secondary effects of adult businesses, intermediate scru- tiny applies.” 411 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2005).

Bd. of Comm’rs, 411 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir.2005).

Bd. of Comm’rs of Gwin- nett County, 411 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2005); see City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425, 448 (2002); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 , 46–50 (1986).

Bd. of Comm’rs of Gwinnett Cnty., 411 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted).

Bd. of County Comm'rs, 411 F.3d 1278, 1286-87 (11th Cir.2005) (describing government's burden as "modest," "low," and not "rigorous"); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting government's evidence need not be overwhelming to meet its initial burden); R.V.S., L.L.C. v. City of Rockford, 361 F.3d 402, 411 (7th Cir.2004) (noting government's burden is "not particularly demanding"). [3] Alameda Books considered the val…

When an ordinance is challenged in that way, we ask whether the municipality demonstrated that the purpose of the or- dinances is “to combat negative secondary effects of adult busi- nesses.” Zibtluda, LLC v. Gwinnett County, 411 F.3d 1278, 1285 (11th Cir. 2005).

Zibtluda, LLC v. Gwinnett Cty., 411 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2005).

Bd. of Comm’rs, 411 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir.2005).

Bd. of Comm’rs, 411 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2005) (“The Supreme Court has made clear that when the purpose of an adult entertainment ordinance is to ameliorate the secondary effects of adult businesses, intermediate scrutiny applies.”).

In Wacko’s Too, meanwhile, the Eleventh Circuit made clear that it found the ordinance content-neutral specifically and only because it regulated adult- entertainment venues: To be sure, the ordinance’s age restriction feels content-based. . . . [But] when the purpose of an adult entertainment ordinance is to ameliorate the secondary effects of adult businesses, intermediate scrutiny applies. . . . “[A]lthough these ordinances are not strictly content-neutral, they are simpl…

Bd. of Comm’rs of Gwinnett County, 411 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir.2005) (ordinance applying specifically to adult entertainment businesses); Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.2004) (city policy requiring all persons wishing to participate in a protest to undergo magnetometer screening); Burk v. Augusta-Richmond County, 365 F.3d 1247 (11th.

See, e.g., Zibtluda, LLC v. Gwinnett Cty., Co., 411 F.3d 1278, 1285 (11th Cir.2005) (explaining that if an ordinance is found to be aimed at secondary effects, it can hardly be argued that the ordinance does not serve a substantial governmental purpose).