Term: 2003
Docket: 02-1609
City Of Littleton, Colorado v. Z. J. Gifts D-4, L. L. C., A Limited Liability Company, Dba Christal's
- Pro
02-1609 LITTLETON, CO v. GIFTS D-4, LLC Ruling below: CA 10, 311 F.3d 1220. QUESTIONS PRESENTED: This Petition involves a challenge by Respondent to the judicial review provisions of The City of Littleton's City Code, Title 3, Chapter 14, Section 8 ("the Ordinance"). The Ordinance governs the licensing of adult entertainment establishments within the City of Littleton. When a license is denied pursuant to this Ordinance, its provisions provide for "prompt access to judicial review" through Colorado's mandatory certiorari review procedure under Colo.R.Civ.P. 106(a)(4) (review in the nature of certiorari). This procedure was recently invalidated by the Tenth Circuit in Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. v. City of Littleton, 311 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2002). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals instead required that cities in Colorado guarantee that judges will render a "prompt judicial decision on the merits" when an adult business challenges an adverse licensing scheme. This Petition seeks the resolution of a near complete division in the Circuits regarding the sufficiency of prompt access to an independent judicial officer when an adult business license is denied for violations of content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations. This question requires the Court to revisit the plurality decision in FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 107 L. Ed. 2d 603, 110 S. Ct. 596 (1990). The present case asks this Court to resolve the conflict so municipal governments, seeking to regulate the negative secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses, may meet the correct standard for providing judicial review of licensing decislons. The Questions Presented are: For the purposes of reviewing content-neutral sexually oriented business licensing decisions, is prompt judicial access sufficient or must a city somehow provide a prompt judicial decision? If prompt access to a court of law is insufficient, then what must a city do to provide sufficient safeguards under the First Amendment? CERT. GRANTED: 10/14/03 Limited to the following question: Whether the requirement of prompt judicial review imposed by FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) entails a prompt judicial determination or a prompt commencement of judicial proceedings.
The U.S. Supreme Court case City of Littleton, Colorado v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 2003 revolved around the constitutionality of a city ordinance requiring adult businesses to obtain licenses before operating within its jurisdiction. The defendant, an adult bookstore named Christal's owned by Z.J. Gifts D-4 LLC., argued that this requirement violated their First Amendment rights as it gave the city too much discretion in granting or denying licenses and lacked prompt judicial review for denials - thus potentially suppressing free speech indefinitely. However, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Littleton’s licensing scheme with a 9-0 decision stating that while prior restraint on speech (such as needing a license) is generally unconstitutional under First Amendment protections, exceptions can be made if there are procedural safeguards in place to prevent undue suppression of free speech – such as timely judicial review processes for denied applications which were present in this case.
In the dissenting opinion for the case of City of Littleton, Colorado v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance requiring adult businesses to obtain licenses was too broad and could potentially infringe upon First Amendment rights. He contended that while it is important for cities to regulate adult businesses in order to prevent negative secondary effects such as crime or decreased property values, these regulations must not be so extensive as to suppress free speech unnecessarily. In his view, by allowing cities wide latitude in imposing licensing requirements on adult businesses without clear guidelines about what constitutes an "unreasonable delay" in granting or denying a license application, there is potential for abuse and censorship through excessive delays or arbitrary denials.
