Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed February 22, 2018 - Case No. 2018-0114 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HDV CLEVELAND, LLC, dba Larry : Case No. 2018-0114 Flynt’s Hustler Club : : On Appeal from the Appellant, : Franklin County : Court of Appeals, vs. : Tenth Appellate District : OHIO LIQUOR CONTROL : Court of Appeals Case COMMISSION, : No. 17AP-362 : Appellee. ______________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPPOSING JURISDICTION ______________________________________________________________________________ J Michael Murray (0019626) Mike DeWine (0009181) *Counsel of Record Attorney General of Ohio Steven D. Shafron (0039042) Berkman, Gordon, Murray, & DeVan Charles Febus (0063213) 55 Public Square, Suite 2200 Anthony J. Garcia (0097135) Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Assistant Attorneys General Tel: 216-781-5245 Charitable Law Section Fax: 216-781-8207 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor [email protected] Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 [email protected] Tel: 614-466-4513 Fax: 614-728-4548 Counsel for Appellant [email protected] HDV Cleveland, LLC dba Larry Flynt’s [email protected] Hustler Club Counsel for Appellee Ohio Liquor Control Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... iii, iv INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS .................................................2 A. The Commission sanctioned Hustler for multiple violations in 2014. ....................2 B. The Commission revoked Hustler’s liquor permit for another Rule 52 violation in 2015, and offered Hustler the option to pay a $100,000 forfeiture instead.. ....................................................................................2 C. Both the common pleas and appeals courts affirmed the Commission’s sanction. ...................................................................................................................3 THIS IS NOT A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTERST AND DOES NOT INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ........3 A. Neither aspect of Hustler’s first proposition of law warrants review, as Henry’s Café does not warrant review and constitutional limits apply to all agency action. ................................................................................................4 1. Henry’s Café is well settled and does not warrant review. .................................4 2. Hustler’s constitutional issue does not warrant review because no one disputes that constitutional violations may be corrected, but no violations occurred here. .......................................................................................................5 B. Review is not warranted to assess any alleged greater protection for nude dancing and lewd conduct under Ohio’s Constitution or to re-assess Rule 52’s constitutionality after Reed v. Town of Gilbert. .......................................................7 1. Hustler offers no sound reason to suggest that Ohio’s Constitution protects nude dancing and lewd conduct more than its federal counterpart. ......7 2. Review is not needed to address any effect of Reed v. Town of Gilbert . ...........8 i ARGUMENT……………………….. ................................................................................9 Appellee’s Proposition of Law No. 1: A penalty imposed by the Liquor Control Commission must be upheld as long as it is within the Commission’s legally authorized discretion, and as long as the underlying determination is in accordance with law and supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. ........................................................................9 Appellee’s Proposition of Law No. 2: A court reviewing an administrative decision has the authority to reduce, modify, or vacate that decision when the penalty imposed violates the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the United States or Ohio Constitutions. ...........................................................11 Appellee’s Proposition of Law No. 3: Ohio’s Rule 52, governing nude or semi-nude dancing and lewd conduct in establishments with liquor licenses, is constitutional under both the Ohio and United States Constitution, as the Ohio Constitution is not more protective of nude dancing, and Reed does not change federal law. ................................................................................................13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................17 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGES 161 Dublin, Inc. v. Ohio State Liquor Control Comm. 2001-Ohio-8863 (10th Dist.) ......................................................................................14 34 N. Jefferson, LLC v. Liquor Control Comm. 2012-Ohio-3231 (10th Dist.) ...................................................................................7, 13 Am. Entertainers LLC v. City of Rocky Mount, NC No. 5:14-cv-438-D, 2016 WL 4728077 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 8, 2016) ...............................15 Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. 501 U.S. 560, 565-66 (1991) ...................................................................................9, 14 BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola 809 F.3d 317, 326 (7th Cir. 2015) ...............................................................................15 City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M. 529 U.S. 277, 289 (2000) .........................................................................................9, 14 Clayton v. Bd. Of Nursing 147 Ohio St. 3d 114, 2016-Ohio-643.............................................................................5 Flanigan’s Ent. v. Sandy Springs 703 Fed. Appx. 929 (11th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................8 Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General United States 825 F.3d 149, 161 (3rd. Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................15 Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965) .......................................................................................................6 Henry’s Café v. OLCC 170 Ohio St. 233, 163 N.E.2d 678 (1959) ............................................................ passim J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. Dragani 538 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................7, 13 J.L. Spoons, Inc., et al. v. Ohio Dept. of Public Safety, et al. 31 F.Supp.3d. 933 (N.D. Ohio 2014) .......................................................................7, 13 Junction 615, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. 135 Ohio App. 3d 33, 40 (10th Dist. 1999) .................................................................14 Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003), ......................................................................................................6 iii CASES (CONT.) PAGES Matthews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) .............................................................................................11 Pickaway Cty. Skilled Gaming, LLC v. Cordray 127 Ohio St.3d 104, 951; 2010-Ohio-4908 .................................................................12 Planned Parenthood v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992) .......................................................................................................6 Reed v. Town of Gilbert 135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015) .......................................................................................... passim Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ......................................................................................................6 Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942 ........................................................................................................6 State v. Wolery 46 Ohio St. 2d 316 (1976)..............................................................................................6 Tolbert v. LCC (Dec. 3, 1998), Franklin App. No. 98AP-285 ..............................................................10 WCI, Inc. v. Liquor Control Comm. 2016-Ohio-4778 (10th Dist.) ...................................................................................7, 13 STATUTES R.C. 119.12 ......................................................................................................................1, 4 R.C. 2907.40 ........................................................................................................................3 R.C. 4301.03(B) .................................................................................................................12 R.C. 4301.25 ......................................................................................................................10 R.C. 4301.25(A) .................................................................................................................10 OTHER AUTHORITIES Ohio Administrative Code Sections 4301:1-1-52 and 4301:1-1-52(B) ..................... passim iv INTRODUCTION This case does not warrant this Court’s review, as it involves the application of settled law to particular facts. Appellant HDV (“Hustler”) runs a strip club that repeatedly violated liquor laws, including “Rule 52,” which bars nudity and lewd conduct. The Ohio Liquor Control Commission (“Commission”) revoked Hustler’s liquor permit, but gave Hustler an option to pay a $100,000 forfeiture as an alternative to permanently losing its permit. That