FLANIGAN’S ENTERPRISES, INC. - Supreme Court

[Pages:39]No. ________ IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES, INC. OF GEORGIA, et al., Petitioners, v.

CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA, Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

CARY S. WIGGINS Wiggins Law Group 260 Peachtree St., NW Suite 401 Atlanta, Ga. 30303 (404) 659-2880 cary@wigginslaw



J. MICHAEL MURRAY Counsel of Record LORRAINE R. BAUMGARDNER Berkman, Gordon, Murray

& DeVan 55 Public Square, Suite 2200 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 781-5245 jmmurray@

Counsel for Petitioners

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. The secondary effects doctrine of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), provides that content-based regulations avowedly aimed at adverse secondary effects associated with businesses offering sexually oriented expression are to be reviewed under intermediate, rather than strict, scrutiny. Does that doctrine survive Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015), which holds that facially content-based laws are subject to strict scrutiny, regardless of their content-neutral justifications? 2. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 535 U.S. 425 (2002), is a plurality decision addressing the evidentiary burdens under the secondary effects doctrine. If the secondary effects doctrine survives, does Justice Kennedy's concurrence constitute the holding of that case as representing the narrowest ground supporting the judgment, as the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth Circuits, and prior panels of the Eleventh Circuit have held, or is Justice Kennedy's concurrence not binding precedent, as the court below concluded? 3. Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977), held that "[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices `the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds....'" Under Marks: (1) may a concurring opinion qualify as the holding even if it does not share

ii common reasoning with the plurality opinion, as the Eleventh Circuit has held? United States v. Hughes, 849 F.3d 1008 (11th Cir. 2017) cert. granted, No. 17-155, Dec. 8, 2017, or (2) must it be "in harmony" with the plurality opinion to qualify as the holding, as the court below held? or (3) must it be a "logical subset" of the other broader opinions in the case to qualify as the holding, as the Ninth and D.C. Circuits, have held? United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc); King v. Palmer, 950 F.2d 771, 781 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (en banc).

iii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING BELOW

The parties to the proceedings in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit were Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. of Georgia; 6420 Roswell Rd., Inc.; and Fantastic Visuals, LLC.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc., a publicly traded

company, is the parent corporation of Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. of Georgia. No publicly traded company owns stock in 6420 Roswell Rd., Inc. or Fantastic Visuals, LLC, and neither has a parent corporation.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING BELOW . . . . . iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT . . . . iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI . . . . . . 1 OPINIONS BELOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND

ORDINANCES INVOLVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I. Factual Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 II. Procedural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT . . . . . . . 12 I. Reed Left the Fate of the Secondary

Effects Doctrine in Limbo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

v TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Page II. Based on Its Singular Interpretation of

Marks v. United States, the Court Below Determined That Justice Kennedy's Concurrence in Alameda Books Is Not Binding Precedent, a Decision At Odds with Those of the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits?as Well as Other Eleventh Circuit Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A. The court's conclusion that Justice

Kennedy's concurrence in Alameda Books is not binding precedent conflicts with the decisions of every other court that has addressed the issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B. The court's conclusion that under Marks v. United States, a concurrence stating the narrowest ground in support of a judgment is not binding unless it can be harmonized with the plurality opinion, is in conflict with United States v. Hughes, 849 F.3d 1008 (11th Cir. 2017) cert. granted, No. 17-155, Dec. 8, 2017, and adopts an interpretation of Marks followed by no other circuit court . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) APPENDIX Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit . . . . . . . . App. 1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 34 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Denying of Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 209 Constitutional provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 211 Chapter 26, Code of the City of Sandy Springs, Ga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 214 Ordinance 2009-04-22, City of Sandy Springs, Ga. . . . . . . . . . . . App. 267 Section 6-135, Code of the City of Sandy Springs, Ga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 302

vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, Ind., 581 F.3d 460 (7th Cir. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 22

BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola, 809 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cahaly v. Larosa, 796 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2015) . . . 14

Cent. Radio Co. Inc. v. City of Norfolk, 811 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 535 U.S. 425 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. of Ga. v. Fulton Cty., Ga., 596 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 22

Fly Fish, Inc. v. City of Cocoa Beach, 337 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 22

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) . . . . . . . . 20

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General United States, 825 F. 3d 149 (3rd Cir. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14, 18

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . 20

King v. Palmer, 950 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (en banc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download