Club Madonna Inc. v. City of Miami Beach

USCA11 Case: 20-14292 Date Filed: 08/01/2022 Page: 1 of 66 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-14292 ____________________ CLUB MADONNA INC., a Florida corporation d.b.a. Club Madonna, Plaintiff-Appellant- Cross Appellee, versus CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee- Cross Appellant. USCA11 Case: 20-14292 Date Filed: 08/01/2022 Page: 2 of 66 2 Opinion of the Court 20-14292 ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-25378-FAM ____________________ Before NEWSOM and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and STORY,* District Judge. MARCUS, Circuit Judge: Over and over, laws regulating adult entertainment estab- lishments have raised constitutional questions. The law at issue today is no different. After a thirteen-year-old victim of human trafficking per- formed at the City of Miami Beach (“the City”)’s only fully nude strip club, Club Madonna, Inc. (“the Club”), the City came down hard on the Club. It enacted two closely intertwined ordinances (collectively, “the Ordinance”) that required all nude strip clubs to follow a record-keeping and identification-checking regime in or- der to ensure that each individual performer is at least eighteen years old -- the records of which the City could demand to see at any time -- or face stiff penalties. The passage of the Ordinance * Honorable Richard W. Story, United States District Judge, for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 20-14292 Date Filed: 08/01/2022 Page: 3 of 66 20-14292 Opinion of the Court 3 sparked a years-long legal fight between the Club and the City, which reached this Court once before and is before us again. The Club’s challenges implicate several questions of first im- pression. The Club says that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourth Amendments, and that it is partially preempted by federal and state law. The district court ruled for the City at summary judgment on the Club’s first two claims, ruled for the Club on its federal preemption claim at summary judgment, and ruled for the City on the Club’s state law preemption claim at the motion-to- dismiss stage for failure to state a claim. The Club now appeals the court’s rulings on its First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and state law preemption claims. Meanwhile, the City cross-appeals the district court’s ruling on the Club’s federal preemption claim. We affirm on all counts. First, although the Ordinance im- plicates the First Amendment because it singles out an industry that engages in expressive activity for special regulation, we still affirm because the Ordinance satisfies intermediate scrutiny. Second, the Ordinance’s warrantless-search provision does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the adult entertainment industry is a closely regulated industry for Fourth Amendment purposes, and the warrantless-search provision satisfies the administrative-search exception because it can be narrowly read to avoid Fourth Amend- ment concerns. Third, the Ordinance’s employment-verification requirement that any worker or performer “[i]s either a U.S. Citi- zen, legal resident, or otherwise legally permitted to be employed within the United States of America” …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals