Federal Court to Government Regulators: The First Amendment Protects Tattoo Shops
"The tattoo itself, the process of tattooing, and the business of tattooing are forms of pure expression fully protected by the First Amendment."
The tattoo trade has won another notable legal victory in its long-running battle against unreasonable government regulation.
In late March a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled unanimously in favor of California tattoo artist James Real, who is currently mounting a constitutional challenge to the city of Long Beach's anti-tattoo shop zoning law and other prohibitory regulations. "We have held that tattooing is 'purely expressive activity fully protected by the First Amendment,'" the 9th Circuit bluntly reminded the federal district court, which had previously dismissed Real's complaint. "This includes '[t]he tattoo itself, the process of tattooing, and even the business of tattooing.'" Translation: Get your act together, district court.
This is a key win for Real, who had suffered a massive early defeat when the federal district court held that he lacked standing to challenge the city's zoning law as unconstitutional on its face and that he lacked standing to challenge the law as applied to him. The district court also held that the city's actions cannot be viewed as violations of Real's First Amendment rights.
The 9th Circuit reversed the district court on all counts. Its decision in Real v. City of Long Beach orders the district court to rehear Real's case and "to try Real's facial and as-applied First Amendment claims, on the grounds that the City's zoning ordinances operate as unlawful prior restraints on speech and are unreasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech." I suspect Real is going to fare a little better in district court the second time around.
As I previously reported in Reason's June 2016 issue, tattoo artists are increasingly taking the government to court and winning on the merits:
Over the past half-century, tattoo artists have been subjected to all manner of overreaching, ill-fitting, and just plain nonsensical government controls. They've been hassled by clueless health departments, shut down by moralizing zoning boards, and outlawed entirely by busybody city councils and state legislatures. But tattoo artists can be a prickly bunch, and increasingly they're opting to fight back. In recent years tattooists around the country have launched a series of civil liberties lawsuits designed to put the government's regulatory malfeasance on trial. And while the ink-masters aren't winning every case, their legal attacks are finally starting to turn the tide.
James Real's preliminary victory at the 9th Circuit is further evidence that the tide is turning.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe the 9th Circuit has gotten their act together on the Constitution so they won't be reversed so much by the Supreme Court.
Probably a fluke. Giving the tattoo guy a 1st Amendment win didn't require the lefties on that circuit court to shed their opposition to the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 10th Amendments.
And the first clause of the First Amendment.
This is the most hollow First Amendment win ever.
And fortunately so. In the United States, "freedom of speech" means the right to politely and appropriately express your opinion, within the bounds of civility, in a proper time and place. That is the way it has always been, and that is the way it should continue to be. Further restrictions are occasionally required, so we can make America stronger, limper, and great again. Surely nobody here would dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in our nation's leading criminal "satire" case? See the documentation at:
http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/
I am thinking the logic that tatooing is pure free speech act even as a business will not apply to less transgressive enterprises by the 9th Curcuit.
How the hell can one lack standing against a law applied to oneself?
Its a judicial trick. Just say people cannot sue and let them shell out hundreds in appellate court filing fees and thousands in appellate attorney costs. Make sure they are really serious.
Anything to prevent the unpredictable jury decision that judges cannot control.
But what if it's a Christian tattooer who is "asked" to tattoo a gay couple with matching ink for their weeding? Does the first amendment apply to that?
There is no such thing as a Christian tattooer.
au contrair mon frere
Crucifixion, nails, thorns, and other religious imagery makes for some BA tattoos.
I really just wanted someone to dig one up and post it here.
Graffiti on the temple is not Christian!
What about tattoos of swatikas, or a whistleblower email?
??????O I quit my office job and now I am getting paid 96 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after?I can say my life is changed completely for the better!?2..Check it out what i do? .??????? ?????____BIG.....EARN....MONEY..___???????-
Well I think that this is going to work for sure in the best way possible Snapchat Login