This appeal involves a constitutional challenge to a City of Atlanta ordinance that prohibits persons under the age of 21 from entering, remaining in or loitering at any business licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages by the drink at retail or for consumption on the premises. Appellants are five young women between the ages of 18 and 21 who work as adult entertainers and are employed as performers at a business to which the ordinance applies. Appellees are the City of Atlanta and its mayor hereinafter, “the City”. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the trial court erred by upholding the constitutionality of the ordinance. 1. As an initial matter, the City’s motion to transfer this case to the Court of Appeals is denied. Contrary to the City’s contention, this Court has jurisdiction in “all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance , or constitutional provision has been drawn in question.” Emphasis added. Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. I, Ga. Const. 1983. Appellees’ reliance on Savannah TV Cable Co. v. Mayor &c. of Savannah , 225 Ga. 821 171 SE2d 498 1969 is misplaced because that case predates the 1983 Constitution that first provided for this Court’s jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to ordinances, see Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. I, supra, and thus has not constituted valid precedent for over 25 years.
2. The challenged ordinance, City of Atlanta Code of Ordinances § 10-12, provides, in pertinent part, that: no person under the age of 21 years shall enter, remain in or loiter on any licensed premises . . . licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages by the drink at retail, or sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises; nor shall any licensee or employee permit or allow any person under the age of 21 to remain in or loiter in or about such place.1 Notwithstanding the blanket prohibition established in § 10-12, another City ordinance contains so many exceptions to its prohibition, see City of Atlanta Code of Ordinances, § 10-13, that only a handful of businesses are actually affected by § 10-12. Among those few businesses not excepted by § 10-13 are ones that offer adult entertainment, such as the nightclub where appellants work.
