Ninth Circuit rules tattoo parlors protected by First Amendment
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Thursday invalidated [opinion, PDF] a municipal ban on tattoo parlors by Hermosa Beach, California, calling it a violation of the First Amendment. The controversy initially arose when Johnny Anderson was denied a permit to open a tattoo parlor by the city, located in southern California. The city does not list tattoo parlors in its zoning code [materials], and, as tattoo parlors must be registered under California law [California Health and Safety Code, text], the city’s code in effect outlawed those establishments. The US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] granted summary judgment to the city when Anderson filed his original suit. In arriving at its decision, the Ninth Circuit first held that tattooing is an expressive activity, not merely conduct with an expressive component. Based on that holding, the court further held that tattooing was subject to only reasonable time, place or manner restrictions, and the city’s ban was not narrowly tailored to the city’s interest in protecting public health and did not leave open alternative channels of communication. The court concluded:
[T]he City’s total ban on tattoo parlors in Hermosa Beach is not a reasonable “time, place, or manner” restriction because it is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the City’s significant health and safety interests and because it entirely forecloses a unique and important method of expression. Moreover, no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the constitutionality of the regulation. Thus, we hold that Hermosa Beach Municipal Code § 17.06.070 is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes tattoo parlors.
The city is currently deliberating as to whether it will appeal the decision [LAT report] to an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, or perhaps even to the Supreme Court.
First Amendment rights have been the focus of numerous court challenges in recent history, often by unpopular groups seeking to have their rights enforced. Also Thursday, the US District Court for the Central District of California, which granted summary judgment against Anderson, ruled that the US military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy violates the First Amendment [JURIST report]. In August, the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri found that Missouri laws banning protests at funerals [JURIST report] are unconstitutional. That case involved the controversial Westboro Baptist Church, and another case involving the same organization will be heard by the Supreme Court [JURIST report] this term.
Read more detail on JURIST – Paper Chase
- Avvo’s Lawyer Ratings Protected by the First Amendment, Judge Rules in False-Advertising Suit In what may yet turn out to be a case with a controversial decision, U.S. District Judge Koeltl ruled that Avvo’s lawyer ratings are statements of opinion and are protected by the First […]
- Refusal to be an "informant" protected by the First Amendment Refusal to be an "informant" protected by the First Amendment Burns v Martuscello, USCA Second Circuit, Docket No. 15-1631This decision appears to be one of "first […]
- "I Love Boobies!" Bracelets Protected by First Amendment in School, Says Court Last October we discussed the story of Riverside High School Students Suspended for Wearing "I Love Boobies!" Bracelets". At Riverside High School in Spokane, Dakota Jewell […]
- The Ninth Circuit Rules on Plan Feasibility
In the case of Sherman v. Harbin (In re Harbin), the Ninth Circuit decided that in determining feasibility of a plan under Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(a)(11), a court must evaluate the […]
- NINTH CIRCUIT RULES PUNITIVE DAMAGES AVAILABLE TO INJURED SEAMAN AND FISHERMAN The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that injured seaman and fisherman may claim punitive damages under the general maritime law unseaworthiness doctrine. The Ninth Circuit Court […]
- Ninth Circuit strikes down anti-day laborer ordinance [JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Friday struck down [opinion, PDF] a City of Redondo Beach [official website] anti-day laborer ordinance […]
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Criminal Statute Requiring Disclosure of HIV Status Does Not Violate the First Amendment In August, the Ohio Supreme Court decided an issue of first impression on the constitutionality of a statute proscribing a person who knows they are HIV positive from engaging in sexual […]
- EFF to Tenth Circuit: First Amendment Protects Right to Record Police The First Amendment protects the public’s right to use electronic devices to record on-duty police officers, EFF argued in an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth […]
- Trump’s Twitter blocking violates First Amendment, court rules Enlarge (credit: NurPhoto/Getty Images) A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Donald Trump's use of the Twitter block button violated the First Amendment. The ruling has […]
- Ninth Circuit strikes down ban on military recruitment of minors [JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Friday upheld [opinion, PDF] a lower court's ruling invalidating the ban on the military recruitment of minors […]
This entry was posted in World
and tagged amendment
. Bookmark the permalink