The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a District Court's grant of summary judgment to two adult bookstores. The stores had claimed that a Los Angeles ordinance requiring the dispersal of adult businesses violated the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit found that the declarations upon which the summary judgment was based were biased did not amount to "actual and convincing" evidence sufficient to cast doubt on the rationale for the ordinance.

The ruling is the latest in a 15-year-old case that the court called "resilient." Yet the ruling settled nothing. All the Ninth Circuit did was return the case, known as Alameda Books, to District Court for trial. 

A city ordinance effectively banning tattoo parlors oversteps constitutional limits protecting freedom of expression, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

A unanimous three-judge panel struck down a City of Hermosa Beach zoning code prohibiting tattoo parlors because it violated the First Amendment. 

Although it may seem that tattoos are the provenance of modern day subcultures such as rock stars and motorcyclists, tattoos have been part of evolving culture around the globe for thousands of years, the court explained. City of Hermosa Beach, however, perceived tattoos' outlaw air and had adopted a zoning ordinance that precluded the operation of tattoo parlors.

In a case involving the City of Stanton's "sensitive use ordinance," the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that the city's handling of an application for an adult business was flawed. 

On December 1, 2008, Musa Madain submitted tenant improvement plans for a proposed adult cabaret on Katella Avenue. At the same time, he allegedly also attempted to submit the appropriate application and fee for an adult business. However, Madain claims he was told by city staff at the planning counter that the application and fee were not necessary. Two weeks later, Madain received a letter from the city manager stating his tenant improvements were rejected on the grounds his application was incomplete and that it was proposed within 300 feet of a "planned" church. 

They raise the ire of homeowners and merchants, councilmembers and supervisors, police chiefs and chamber of commerce leaders. They are seen as blights on a town, attractions for the wrong element. They should be run out of town, is the common sentiment.