Federal judge writes with humor in denying SOB injunction.

35 Bar and Grill, et al v City of San Antonio, SA-13-CA-34-FB, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, April 29, 2013).

Normally this appellate update is focused on appellate cases once opinions are issued. However, this U.S. District Court opinion regarding San Antonio’s Sexual Oriented Business (“SOB”) ordinance amendments was simply too entertaining not to distribute.

In December 2012 the City of San Antonio amended its SOB ordinance to address recent case law changes and enforcement aspects.  The City had a regulatory mechanism where SOBs and entertainers had to be licenses but many clubs were avoiding regulation since the definition of “semi-nude” dancing did not include dancing with pasties. The amendments defined semi-nude dancing to include dancing with pasties which means clubs either have to become licensed or have dancers with bikini tops on to avoid regulation. Several establishments sued arguing various First Amendment violations.

This is an opinion denying the Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction.  The court found that while the First Amendment may be implicated (and therefore an irreparable injury present), the Plaintiffs failed to dispel the regulation was content-neutral and narrowly tailored to negative secondary effects.  The thing that makes this opinion entertaining is the District Court’s puns, plays on words and humorous explanations.  The caption of this order is entitled THE CASE OF THE ITSY BITSY TEENY WEENY BIKINI TOP V. THE (MORE) ITSY BITSY TEENY WEENY PASTIE, and that’s just for starters.  So take a break from your mundane legal reading and enjoy.

To read this opinion click here.

Leave a Comment