Posted by: Patricia Salkin | July 9, 2013

6th Circuit Court of Appeals Holds Once Particular Statutes Prohibiting Certain Sexually Oriented Signs Were Found Facially Unconstitutional, a Subsequent Plaintiff May Not Challenge the Same Laws

Michigan State statues prohibit sexually oriented businesses from displaying both on-premises and off-site signs that contain more than “words or numbers.”  Two businesses challenged the statute on First Amendment grounds and the district court enjoined enforcement of the laws and the State stipulated to a final judgment that both laws were facially unconstitutional.   In the instant proceeding, a third plaintiff, using the same successful attorney as before, challenged the statutes two months after the stipulated judgment on the same free speech grounds. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said the good news is that the former successful lawsuit applies to Platinum Sports as the stipulation of facial unconstitutionality means that the State cannot enforce the statutes against Platinum.  The bad news for the Platinum is that they no longer have standing to challenge the statutes as they lack a cognizable injury.  Further, the Court noted that Platinum’s ingenuity in attempted to raise an Equal Protection claim also fails since the enforcement of the underlying statutes has been enjoined.

Platinum Sports, LTD v Snyder, 715 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. (Mich) 5/13/2013)

The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0136p-06.pdf


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: