presuming that state courts would refrain from “expansive construction” of adult entertainment if such construction would affect “mainstream artistic performances” or mainstream establishments for the “presentation of a single performance” and noting that “[c]ases of overzealous enforcement against mainstream artistic venues . . . would and should invite litigation by the affected parties on an as-applied basis”
How later courts described this case
- presuming that state courts would refrain from “expansive construction” of adult entertainment if such construction would affect “mainstream artistic performances” or mainstream establishments for the “presentation of a single performance” and noting that “[c]ases of overzealous enforcement against mainstream artistic venues . . . would and should invite litigation by the affected parties on an as-applied basis”
- upholding definition of “adult cabaret” limited to “establishments that feature as a principal use of [their] business, [employees who are nude or semi-nude]” (emphasis added)
- upholding, against overbreadth challenge, a no-touching and six-foot buffer-zone requirement between entertainers and customers and between entertainers and other entertainers
- upholding denial of request for preliminary injunction based on state statute that contained licensing requirement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge,
concurring only in the judgment.
I believe that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. I do not join the majority’s opinion, and I concur solely in the judgment affirming the district court’s judgment that the plaintiffs have not satisfied the require- *396 merits for a preliminary injunction of the challenged provisions, Tennessee Code Annotated § 7 — 51—1114(b) & (c).