Divided Fifth Circuit Panel Reverses Ban on Sex-Themed Event at Dallas Convention Center
A decision preventing a company from holding an adult sex-themed event at Dallas' convention center—even after the city's own attorney warned that such a move would violate the business' free-speech rights—has been reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a 2-1 decision.
October 25, 2018 at 04:35 PM
4 minute read
A decision preventing a company from holding an adult sex-themed event at Dallas' convention center—even after the city's own attorney warned that such a move would violate the business' free-speech rights—has been reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a 2-1 decision.
According to the decision in Three Expo Events v. City of Dallas, Three Expo Events staged a well-attended and economically successful event called “Exxxotica 2015,” which featured near nudity and sexually suggestive activities that drew opposition from some Dallas citizens on moral and civic grounds.
Dallas' mayor acknowledged that he was concerned about the city providing a forum for the event, but he and other city officials took the position at the time that they could not legally and constitutionally deny the use of the city's convention center to Three Expo based on the content of its speech or expression.
In 2016, Three Expo was in the process of drafting another contract to hold a similar event at the convention center, but the mayor advised the media he did not want a second event, this one called Exxxotica 2016, to return to the city. Many council members supported the mayor's opposition to the event during a meeting, equating it to “the unbridled right to allow pornography to be displayed in a public facility.”
While the Dallas city attorney advised the council that the resolution preventing a second Exxxotica event at the convention center would not pass constitutional muster, the council voted to pass it anyway.
Three Expo responded by filing a complaint in a Dallas U.S. district court seeking an injunction to prevent the city from enforcing the resolution and denying Exxxotica access to the convention center. The action alleged that the city violated the business' First Amendment rights, among other claims.
The district court later ruled in favor of the city, agreeing with its argument that Three Expo lacked standing to bring the suit—a ruling the business appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
In its recent decision, the Fifth Circuit majority determined the trial court had erred in ruling that Three Expo lacked standing to seek an injunction against the city's resolution.
“The mayor and the city council made clear at the city council meeting their firm and deliberate decision to exclude Exxxotica 2016 from the convention center under any circumstance and regardless of the legal consequences,” wrote Circuit Judge James Dennis.
Dennis noted that the court also erred in agreeing with the city's “highly convoluted and meritless argument” that the resolution did not cause injury to Three Expo.
“Further, it is also clear and free from serious controversy that Three Expo's injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the city in denying it a forum for its speech events and that it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision in this case,” Dennis concluded in the decision.
Judge Jennifer Elrod filed a dissenting opinion, noting that the majority had ignored the text of the city's resolution. “It ignores the fact that the plaintiff never tried to contract with the city after the resolution was passed,” Elrod wrote. “It ignores the fact that the plaintiff, by its own admission, never even intended to contract with the city.”
Roger Albright, a Dallas attorney who represents Three Expo, said the Fifth Circuit's majority ruling was well reasoned.
“The [Fifth Circuit] was rather harsh about the defendant's argument and the court buying it. You don't see that often,'' Albright said.
“We want to enforce our First Amendment right to return to the convention center,” Albright added. “If the city would like to determine a way to return our constitutional right, our client would be willing to listen to what they city wants to put forward.''
Jim Pinson, a Dallas assistant city attorney who helped defend the case, declined to comment on the decision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court Justices Have 'Variety of Views' on Ethics, Kagan Says
Can Congress Tax Unrealized Gains as Income? Supreme Court May Decide
This Judge, Who Grew up in Miami-Dade, Just Had a Street Named After Her
Court Overturns $185M Fee Award for Quinn Emanuel in ACA Litigation
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250