Mitigating Secondary Effects Through Age-Based Regulation: Emperors, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville

Introduction

Emperors, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville (11th Cir. Apr. 23, 2025) addresses the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance that bars erotic dancers under 21 from adult-entertainment establishments and imposes a licensing scheme on performers 21 and older. Several Florida strip clubs and individual dancers challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the age cutoff is a content‐based speech restriction requiring strict scrutiny, and that the licensing requirements impose an unconstitutional prior restraint. The Eleventh Circuit consolidated three suits, considered the scope of “secondary-effects” doctrine, and affirmed the district court’s ruling upholding both the age restriction and the licensing process.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The court held that the ordinance’s effective prohibition on erotic dancers under 21 is a content-neutral regulation under the “secondary-effects” doctrine, subject to intermediate scrutiny (O’Brien test), which the law survives.

2. The 14-day deadline for the sheriff to grant or deny a dancer’s Work Identification Card was found reasonable, and the ordinance preserves the status quo (dancers may perform while their applications are pending). Under the plurality in FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, these safeguards satisfy First Amendment limits on prior restraints.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Renton v. Playtime Theatres (1986): Adult-theater zoning upheld as content-neutral because it targets secondary effects (crime, blight), not content.
City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M. (2000): Nude dancing is protected expressive conduct at the “outer perimeter” of First Amendment protection.
United States v. O’Brien (1968): Four-part intermediate-scrutiny test for content-neutral speech regulations.
Artistic Entertainment, Inc. v. Warner Robins (2000) & Zibtluda, LLC v. Gwinnett County (2005): Circuit cases treating adult-entertainment rules as content-neutral when aimed at secondary effects.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) & City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (2022): Supreme Court’s reaffirmation that facially content-based laws normally trigger strict scrutiny, but Reed did not expressly overrule Renton’s secondary-effects doctrine.
Freedman v. Maryland (1965): Three procedural protections required in a censorship regime—burden on censor, brief status-quo restraints, prompt judicial review.
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas (1990): Prior restraint in licensing contexts requires (a) brief, specified decision period with status quo maintained and (b) prompt judicial review.
City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4 (2004): Licensing appeals must be resolved promptly, but do not require all Freedman safeguards.

Legal Reasoning

A. Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral
Although the ordinance singles out only erotic dance and thus is facially content-based, longstanding Eleventh Circuit precedent (Artistic Entertainment, Zibtluda) “treats” such adult-entertainment regulations as content-neutral when the legislature’s purpose is to curb secondary effects like human trafficking.

B. Intermediate Scrutiny under O’Brien
1. Substantial Government Interest: Combating sex and labor trafficking of minors is unquestionably a substantial interest.
2. Unrelated to Suppression of Expression: The age cutoff targets vulnerability, not the expressive content of dancing.
3. Tailoring: The restriction need not cover every at-risk group (e.g., servers, hostesses) to survive: underinclusive—but not overinclusive—regulation is permissible under intermediate scrutiny.

C. Prior Restraint & Licensing
Under the two-safeguard framework in FW/PBS (status-quo maintenance and a fixed decision period), the ordinance’s 14-day sheriff review (after which applications are deemed granted) and continued performance privilege satisfy First Amendment due process. Denials may be challenged in court, and performers may continue dancing until the sheriff acts.

Impact

• This decision reaffirms the vitality of the secondary-effects doctrine in the Eleventh Circuit, despite Reed’s strict-scrutiny mandate for facially content-based laws.
• Municipalities may impose age restrictions and licensing requirements on adult-entertainment performers so long as they ground them in secondary-effects data and build in brief, definite decision-making windows.
• The ruling provides a blueprint for cities confronting sex-trafficking risks in strip-club environments, balancing expressive freedoms with public safety.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral – A law is content-based if it singles out speech by topic or message; it is content-neutral if it regulates speech without regard to its content (e.g., time, place, manner).
Secondary Effects – Harms such as trafficking, crime, or property devaluation that flow not from the message per se but from the environment created by certain venues.
Strict Scrutiny – The toughest test: a law must serve a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored to that interest (no under- or over-inclusiveness).
Intermediate Scrutiny – A law must serve an important interest unrelated to suppressing speech and must not burden substantially more speech than necessary.
Prior Restraint – Government action that prevents speech before it occurs; permissible if procedural safeguards ensure prompt decisions and protect the speaker’s status quo.

Conclusion

Emperors, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville cements the Eleventh Circuit’s approach to adult-entertainment regulation: facially content-based age restrictions can be treated as content-neutral when aimed at secondary effects, subject to intermediate scrutiny under O’Brien, and licensing schemes need only brief decision windows and status-quo protections to avoid unconstitutional prior restraints. The ruling underscores the delicate balance between protecting expressive conduct and addressing serious public-safety and human-trafficking concerns.