Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,
The U.S. Supreme Court declined a request from adult entertainment providers to halt a federal appeals court ruling that upheld zoning restrictions in New York City.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, overseeing emergency appeals from New York state, issued a brief order in 59 Murray Enterprises Inc. v. City of New York without comment.
The order denied a request for an injunction blocking a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Since Sotomayor acted alone without referring the emergency application to the full court, the companies involved can present the application to another justice under Supreme Court rules.
Typically, in emergency applications, the Supreme Court requests the responding party to file a brief outlining its position. However, Sotomayor did not make such a request in this instance.
In 1995, New York City enacted new zoning laws restricting where adult entertainment-related businesses could operate. The regulations did not apply to establishments where under 40 percent of floorspace or stock-in-trade featured adult entertainment or media, according to the application filed with the Supreme Court on Oct. 22.
The companies involved in the Supreme Court application are engaged in adult entertainment. Eight of the companies operate or lease space to strip clubs and topless bars, while the other six rent out or sell adult books and videos.
Although the businesses were not initially affected by the 1995 regulations, the city’s 2001 zoning amendments removed the 60/40 rule, subjecting the companies to the laws restricting adult establishments, the application explained.
The new zoning amendments were not immediately enforced, but when the city began taking steps to enforce them years later, the businesses filed a lawsuit. In 2024, a federal district court ruled in favor of the city, stating that the 2001 zoning amendments did not violate the businesses’ constitutional rights.
The businesses appealed, arguing that the amendments violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The bookstores involved in the legal challenge contended that the 2001 zoning amendments infringed on the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, the application noted.
The Second Circuit ruled in July of this year that the 2001 zoning amendments did not infringe on the companies’ First Amendment rights.
While the First Amendment protects adult expression, it also allows municipalities to regulate adult entertainment providers and restrict adult businesses from operating in certain locations as part of their zoning authority, citing a 1986 Supreme Court precedent, the application highlighted.
“Limiting where adult businesses may operate may be done to ‘preserve the quality of life in the community at large,’ which is ‘the essence of zoning,’ the court said.”
The application argued that the Supreme Court should grant the application to prevent the city from shutting down businesses engaged in constitutionally protected expression, causing them “irreparable and substantial injury.”
The applicants’ attorney, Edward Rudofsky of Melville, New York, expressed disappointment over the denial of the application.
The Epoch Times reached out to the city’s Law Department for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
Loading recommendations…