Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Association of Club Executives of Dallas, Inc., et al. v. City of Dallas, Texas

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 22-10556 · judgment October 12, 2023


Certiorari denied · March 18, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 4% cert probability

Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Fifth Circuit decision below, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a business petitioner, and down for a state or local-government respondent and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.

Questions presented

  1. The secondary effects doctrine of City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), provides that regulations adopted for the content-neutral purpose of mitigating the claimed adverse secondary effects associated with businesses offering sexually oriented expression are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Does that doctrine survive Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), and City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, ___ U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 1464 (2022), which hold that facially content-based laws are subject to strict scrutiny, regardless of their content-neutral justifications?

  2. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), is a plurality decision addressing the evidentiary burdens under the secondary effects doctrine, which the lower courts have struggled to apply. In this case, Petitioners presented extensive evidence challenging the City’s rationale for an ordinance requiring sexually oriented businesses to close between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The district court found that evidence to be compelling and granted a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction, holding that the district court held the City to too high a standard. Thus, if the secondary effects doctrine survives, the question presented is what quantum of evidence is sufficient to cast doubt on a municipality’s rationale for such an ordinance, under the plurality opinion in Alameda Books?

  3. Justice Kennedy provided the fifth vote for reversal in Alameda Books, and the lower courts have uniformly held his concurring opinion is controlling under Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).

Counsel of record

For petitioner
J. Michael Murray
Berkman Gordon Murray & DeVan

For respondent
Nicholas Dane Palmer
Dallas City Attorney's Office

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Mar 18 2024
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Feb 21 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2024.
  3. Feb 13 2024
    Waiver of right of respondent City of Dallas, Texas to respond filed.
  4. Feb 01 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 6, 2024)