PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
IMAGINARY IMAGES, INCORPORATED,
d/b/a Paper Moon; BTF3, L.L.C.,
d/b/a Paper Moon; PAPERMOON-
SPRINGFIELD, INCORPORATED, d/b/a
Paper Moon,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
PAMELA O’BERRY EVANS, in her
official capacity as Chair of the No. 09-1199
Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control
Board; SUSAN R. SWECKER, in her
official capacity as Member of the
Virginia Alcohol Control Board;
ESTHER H. VASSAR, in her official
capacity as Member of the
Virginia Alcohol Control Board,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge.
(3:08-cv-00398-JRS)
Argued: May 13, 2010
Decided: July 15, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit
Judge, and Samuel G. WILSON, United States District
Judge for the Western District of Virginia,
sitting by designation.
2 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the
opinion, in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Wilson
joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: J. Michael Murray, BERKMAN, GORDON,
MURRAY & DEVAN, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants.
Mikie F. Melis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Steven D.
Shafron, BERKMAN, GORDON, MURRAY & DEVAN,
Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. William C. Mims, Attorney
General of Virginia, Stephen R. McCullough, Solicitor Gen-
eral of Virginia, Catherine Crooks Hill, Assistant Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Rich-
mond, Virginia, for Appellees.
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs are three nightclubs where women give erotic
dance performances wearing only g-strings and pasties. The
clubs brought First Amendment, vagueness, and overbreadth
challenges to Virginia’s alcohol licensing program, which
allows the clubs to serve beer and wine but not mixed bever-
ages. Under the standard of intermediate scrutiny applicable
to policies aimed at the harmful secondary effects of sexually
oriented entertainment, Virginia’s policy passes constitutional
muster. The public interest served by the policy is substantial,
the restriction on the clubs mild and the burden on First
Amendment values slight. Moreover, legislatures must have
some leeway to draw a regulatory middle ground and Virgin-
ia’s is a policy of moderation. Judicial invalidation of care-
fully drawn distinctions risks chasing lawmakers from the
IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS 3
paths of compromise and into absolutes. We thus decline to
overturn the classifications here, and accordingly affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I.
The sale and consumption of alcohol within the Common-
wealth of Virginia is governed by the comprehensive regula-
tory scheme established by the Alcoholic Beverage Control
("ABC") Act, Va. Code §§ 4.1-100, et seq., and by regula-
tions adopted by the ABC Board, the regulatory body created
by the Act. See Va. Code §§ 4.1-101, -103. Under this regime,
establishments where performers offer striptease routines may
obtain licenses to sell beer, wine, or both. Such facilities are
not eligible, however, for mixed beverage licenses, which per-
mit the sale of distilled spirits. See Va. Code §§ 4.1-226(2)(i),
-325(12), (13); 3 Va. Admin. Code § 5-50-140.
The current shape of these provisions stems in part from
earlier litigation. In Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303
F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2002) ("Carandola I"), this court struck
down as overbroad certain North Carolina limitations on the
availability of alcohol at establishments hosting sexually ori-
ented performances. The offending provisions were then
amended and the court upheld the revised scheme against
overbreadth and vagueness challenges. See Giovani Caran-
dola, Ltd. v. Fox, 470 F.3d 1074 (4th Cir. 2006) ("Carandola
II"). At the time, the Virginia ABC statutes and relevant ABC
regulation used language similar to that which Carandola I
had invalidated, leading to an injunction in 2007 against
enforcement of certain portions of the Virginia program. See
Norfolk 302, LLC v. Vassar, 524 F.Supp.2d 728, 742 (E.D.
Va. 2007). The Virginia General Assembly promptly
amended the challenged statutes to bring them into compli-
ance and the ABC Board similarly amended its regulation,
after which this court issued an order dismissing the ABC
Board’s pending appeal and vacating the injunction as moot.
4 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
During the period when Virginia’s rules were suspended,
mixed beverage licenses were issued to the plaintiffs in this
case. Plaintiffs are three Virginia nightclubs belonging to the
Papermoon chain—two in Richmond and one in Springfield
—where dancers perform wearing only g-strings and pasties.
In June 2008, with the revised licensing program about to take
effect and their mixed beverage licenses in jeopardy, plain-
tiffs, whom we shall refer to as Papermoon, sued the ABC
Board’s members to block enforcement. Papermoon argued
that the scheme violated the First Amendment, was unconsti-
tutionally vague, and was facially overbroad.
An evidentiary hearing was held a few months later at
which the ABC Board offered the testimony of W. Curtis
Coleburn, its chief operating officer. Coleburn testified that he
and the Board had reviewed at least forty-two studies and
numerous cases dealing with the negative effects on the sur-
rounding community of sexually oriented businesses. He
explained that Virginia’s decision to limit establishments
offering sexually oriented entertainment to beer and wine
reflected the fact that distilled spirits more readily lead to
intoxication because of their higher alcohol content. He also
stated that Virginia’s policy had been modified to incorporate
the teachings of the Carandola decisions.
In response, Papermoon offered various evidence meant to
show that its clubs did not produce secondary effects. This
consisted chiefly of testimony from its expert, Professor Dan-
iel Linz of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Linz
explained that he had reviewed crime data for the Papermoon
locations and found that there was no increase in crime near
the clubs after they obtained mixed beverage licenses and that
sexually oriented businesses in Richmond generally were not
"hot spots" for crime.
In December 2008, the district court rejected the bulk of
Papermoon’s claims, holding, with exceptions not relevant
here, that Virginia’s policy prohibiting distilled spirits at
IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS 5
establishments like the Papermoon clubs was constitutional.
See Imaginary Images, Inc. v. Evans, 593 F.Supp.2d 848, 863
(E.D. Va. 2008). Papermoon now appeals.
II.
Although it is a far cry from political speech, "nude danc-
ing is not without its First Amendment protections." Schad v.
Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 66 (1981). Regula-
tions of sexually oriented entertainment "receive intermediate
scrutiny if they are not premised on a desire to suppress the
content of such entertainment, but rather to address the harm-
ful secondary effects" it produces—higher crime rates, lower
property values, and unwanted interactions between patrons
and entertainers such as public sexual conduct, sexual assault,
and prostitution. Carandola I, 303 F.3d at 513. Under this
standard, the government must show that its regulation mate-
rially advances its substantial interest in reducing negative
secondary effects and that reasonable alternative avenues of
communication remain available. City of Los Angeles v. Ala-
meda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425, 434 (2002) (plurality); Car-
andola I, 303 F.3d at 515; see also Ward v. Rock Against
Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989) (government must show its
interest "would be achieved less effectively absent the regula-
tion.").
But while the government must "fairly support" its policy,
it need not settle the matter beyond debate or produce an
exhaustive evidentiary demonstration. Alameda Books, 535
U.S. at 438 (plurality); see also id. at 451 (Kennedy, J., con-
curring in the judgment) ("[V]ery little evidence is required.").1
1
Justice Kennedy’s separate opinion in Alameda Books accepted the
four-member plurality’s holding on the evidentiary standard that governs
the secondary effects inquiry. See Alameda Books, 535 U.S. at 449 (Ken-
nedy, J., concurring in the judgment) ("The plurality . . . gives the correct
answer" to the question "how much evidence is required?"); see also Car-
andola I, 303 F.3d at 516.
6 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
Moreover, its policy expertise is entitled to "deference," and
it may demonstrate the efficacy of its method of reducing sec-
ondary effects "by appeal to common sense," rather than "em-
pirical data." Id. at 439-40 (plurality); see also id. at 451-52
(Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment). It may also rely on
the experiences of other jurisdictions and on findings
expressed in other cases. See City of Renton v. Playtime The-
atres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 51-52 (1986). Once the government
makes this showing, the matter is at an end unless the plaintiff
"produces clear and convincing evidence" to rebut it. Caran-
dola I, 303 F.3d at 516.
Papermoon argues that Virginia’s policy is unconstitutional
because a ban on mixed beverages at its clubs is pointless
when beer and wine are still allowed. It asserts that the ABC
Board produced no studies to support such a restriction, while
Papermoon offered social science evidence undermining it. In
assessing Papermoon’s challenge, we first examine the nature
of the regulation and its burden on expressive interests. We
next consider whether the ABC Board sufficiently demon-
strated the necessary relationship between the mixed beverage
restriction and its interest in reducing negative secondary
effects. Finally, we turn to Papermoon’s rebuttal evidence.
A.
We begin by noting that Virginia’s policy regarding alcohol
at erotic dancing locales is about as tame as one could imag-
ine. Virginia "has not forbidden these performances across the
board. It has merely proscribed such performances in estab-
lishments that it licenses to sell liquor by the drink." Califor-
nia v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 118 (1972); see also Carandola
I, 303 F.3d at 513 n.2 & 519.
Indeed, Virginia does not even prohibit all alcohol at sexu-
ally oriented businesses, only mixed beverages. Wine and
beer are as available at the Papermoon clubs as at any other
Virginia bar. And as Papermoon itself notes, beer remained
IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS 7
the drink of choice for its patrons even during the period
when it sold mixed beverages. Given that the First Amend-
ment has been held to permit banning any alcohol where
dancers strip to g-strings and pasties, Virginia’s policy is
hardly censorious. See Daytona Grand, Inc. v. City of Day-
tona Beach, 490 F.3d 860, 886 (11th Cir. 2007); Ben’s Bar,
Inc. v. Village of Somerset, 316 F.3d 702, 728 (7th Cir. 2003).
A mixed beverage license may well be a moneymaker—
Papermoon offered uncontradicted evidence that it was—but
in order to fail intermediate scrutiny there must be some
greater showing than some loss of revenue. See Renton, 475
U.S. at 54. Indeed, the Court recognizes that a law may result
in a mild and incidental diminution of speech without running
afoul of the First Amendment. See Ward, 491 U.S. at 799-
800. And here, it must be said, there is no indication that
expression is being curtailed at all. Although one of the three
Papermoon clubs initially decided to keep its mixed beverage
license and have its dancers wear extra clothes, it evidently
thought better of that decision and returned to pasties and g-
strings. From aught that appears, Papermoon dancers continue
to express themselves after reinstatement of the regulation
without diminution of inhibition—the performance went on as
before.
B.
Not only does Virginia’s policy regulate with the lightest of
touches, but the degree to which it trenches upon First
Amendment values is minimal at best. The First Amend-
ment’s pride of place in our constitutional order is a reflection
of how essential the institution of free speech is to a demo-
cratic society. See Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic
Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989); New York Times Co.
v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). But that principle also
provides a limitation: activities that have little to do with
advocacy, deliberation, or the exposition of ideas have corre-
spondingly little to do with the First Amendment. See City of
8 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 294 (2000). Here the kind
of acts affected by the laws Papermoon assails are removed
from the First Amendment’s core concerns.
The challenged provisions pertain only to businesses where
performers give strip shows or otherwise expose their but-
tocks or breasts. See Va. Code §§ 4.1-226(2)(i), -325(12),
(13); 3 Va. Admin. Code § 5-50-140(B). And the policy does
not even purport to reach all such displays. Sexual entertain-
ment "expressing matters of serious literary, artistic, scien-
tific, or political value" offered in "establishments that are
devoted primarily to the arts or theatrical performances" is
entirely exempt. Va. Code §§ 4.1-226(2), -325(C); 3 Va.
Admin. Code § 5-50-140(C). In other words, the policy pri-
marily, if not exclusively, applies to bars offering perfor-
mances partaking more of "sexuality than of communication."
LaRue, 409 U.S. at 118.
Sexual expression and depictions can and do play an
important role both in democratic and artistic discourse, and
it is thus crucial to our ruling that Virginia has taken care to
narrow its regulatory focus here to the particular context of
sexually oriented entertainment at bars. As to this, we are sim-
ply not at liberty to ignore the Supreme Court’s emphasis
upon the relatively greater protections afforded many other
forms and outlets for artistic speech. The Court has instructed
that nude dancing is "only marginally" of First Amendment
value, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 566 (1991),
and "only within the outer ambit of the First Amendment’s
protection." Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. at 289. For quite simply, "it
is manifest that society’s interest in protecting this type of
expression is of a wholly different, and lesser, magnitude than
the interest in untrammeled political debate." Id. at 294 (quot-
ing Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 70
(1976)). In the context of a restriction as mild as the one to
which Papermoon has been subjected, "[t]he impairment of
First Amendment values is slight to the point of being risible,
since the expressive activity involved in the kind of striptease
IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS 9
entertainment provided in a bar has at best a modest social
value." Blue Canary Corp. v. City of Milwaukee, 251 F.3d
1121, 1124 (7th Cir. 2001). And even here, it bears remind-
ing, Virginia has not asked Papermoon to stop the show or
even to cease serving all alcoholic beverages in conjunction
with it.
C.
1.
With these considerations in mind, we assess the ABC
Board’s justifications for the challenged policy. Notwith-
standing the policy’s minimal effect on expressive interests,
Papermoon requests that we strike it down because the ABC
Board did not produce empirical studies showing that a ban
on only mixed beverages at sexually oriented businesses will
reduce secondary effects—"higher crime rates and lower
property values," and "public sexual conduct, sexual assault,
and prostitution." Carandola I, 303 F.3d at 513. In making
this claim, however, Papermoon asks us to subject the ABC
Board to a more stringent standard than is compatible with the
Supreme Court’s teachings or the appropriate relationship
between courts and policymakers.
For starters, Papermoon’s argument takes an ironic turn,
namely that the Virginia regulation should be struck because
it is too mild to be effective. But in Pap’s A.M., the Supreme
Court rejected the idea that the government’s rationale could
be impeached because its regulation was not as effective as a
more restrictive alternative—in that case because the govern-
ment combated the problems of totally nude dancing by
requiring only that dancers wear pasties and g-strings. See
Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. at 300-01; see also id. at 310 (Scalia,
J., concurring) ("I am highly skeptical, to tell the truth, that
the addition of pasties and G-strings will at all reduce the ten-
dency of establishments such as Kandyland to attract crime
and prostitution . . . ."). It is one thing to challenge the gov-
10 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
ernment’s rationale as pretextual or to argue its restriction
advantages certain speakers or ideas to the detriment of oth-
ers. See City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 50-52 (1994).2
But when the government’s policy is not "a covert attack on
speech," invalidating a regulation because it is too permissive
does First Amendment freedoms no favors. Alameda Books,
535 U.S. at 447 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment).
Even setting this objection aside, however, the ABC
Board’s position that prohibiting mixed beverages at estab-
lishments like Papermoon will curtail adverse secondary
effects was hardly unsupported. The Board considered more
than forty studies documenting the negative secondary effects
associated with establishments like Papermoon, and at any
rate, it is well established that "bars and clubs that present
nude or topless dancing" have "a long history of spawning
deleterious effects." Carandola I, 303 F.3d at 516 (citation
omitted).
Nor can there be any controversy over the proposition that
intoxication aggravates such secondary effects. "Common
sense indicates that any form of nudity coupled with alcohol
in a public place begets undesirable behavior." N.Y. State
Liquor Auth. v. Bellanca, 452 U.S. 714, 718 (1981) (quoting
N.Y. State Legis. Annual 150 (1977)). "Liquor and sex are an
explosive combination." Blue Canary, 251 F.3d at 1124.
Common sense equally indicates that more intoxication will
likely translate into more of the unwanted effects intoxication
produces.
The remaining link in the chain of reasoning underlying
2
Papermoon’s reliance on Joelner v. Village of Washington Park, 508
F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2007), is accordingly misplaced. The policy there at
issue, "prospectively banning alcohol in strip clubs opened in the future,"
"was adopted to stifle competition with current license holders," not to
combat secondary effects, and was subjected to strict scrutiny. Id. at 429,
431, 433.
IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS 11
Virginia’s policy, and the one Papermoon devotes its energies
to attacking, is the assumption that allowing mixed beverages
to be served will likely produce more intoxication. Paper-
moon notes that the ABC Board’s own website instructs that
an ounce-and-a-half shot of eighty-proof liquor contains the
same amount of alcohol as a twelve-ounce beer or five-ounce
glass of wine. How then, asks Papermoon, could mixed bever-
ages lead to more drunkenness?
This argument, however, trips on itself. By Papermoon’s
own calculations, mixed beverages contain a higher concen-
tration of alcohol in a smaller volume. The fact that there is
as much alcohol in a shot of whiskey as there is in a serving
of beer more than six times that volume illustrates how much
more concentrated distilled spirits are. A state is thus entitled
to conclude, as the Commonwealth has: "Distilled spirits used
in mixed beverages have higher alcohol content per volume
than beer or wine. As a result, patrons drinking straight shots
of liquor or mixed beverages can become intoxicated with
less volume consumed, and, therefore, in less time and more
easily, than patrons drinking beer or wine." Appellee’s Br. at
17.
Virginia could certainly conclude that this higher level of
intoxication from mixed beverages translates into higher
levels of secondary effects in the surrounding area –- namely
sexual assaults, prostitution, and a generally higher disorderly
conduct rate. Virginia could certainly take notice of the fact
that people will visit these clubs throughout the hours of the
clubs’ operation and that patrons will stay for varying lengths
of time. For those at a club a relatively short period of time,
a state of intoxication can be reached more quickly with dis-
tilled spirits. For those there a longer time, the degree of
intoxication will be much greater with mixed beverages than
it would be for a person drinking beer or wine over the same
period. Of course, all of these assumptions will be subject to
individual variations dependent upon a variety of factors. But
legislatures can pass laws dealing with what will normally
12 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
happen without making exceptions for individual particulari-
ties.
In sum, Virginia has a legitimate interest in reducing the
chances of a person leaving a strip club intoxicated by elimi-
nating the sale of distilled spirits and it could further legiti-
mately believe that this modest step could reduce the harmful
secondary effects surrounding such establishments.
2.
The particular risks of distilled spirits are reflected in the
fact that Virginia in a variety of ways saddles them with spe-
cial burdens. Distilled spirits are taxed more heavily than beer
and wine. See Va. Code §§ 4.1-234, -236. Unlike beer and
wine, they generally can only be purchased for home con-
sumption in ABC stores. See id. §§ 4.1-119(A), -210; see also
id. § 4.1-221(A). And they may only be served in establish-
ments with full restaurant facilities where at least forty-five
percent of gross receipts come from the sale of food or other
beverages. See id. § 4.1-210(A)(1). Papermoon argues that
because these additional safeguards are in place, there is no
need for further restricting the availability of mixed beverage
licenses at its clubs. But one sensible precaution does not
obviate the need for others. As Coleburn testified, "Our whole
system, as well as that of every state in the United States, is
designed to discourage people from drinking distilled spirits
in favor of the less intoxicating beer and wine."
Virginia has long favored less potent varieties of drink. The
original ABC Act established a policy of "discouraging the
consumption of hard liquor by making it harder to obtain
while encouraging the consumption of light fermented bever-
ages, such as beers and wines by making them easier to
obtain." Bolick v. Roberts, 199 F.Supp.2d 397, (E.D. Va.
2002) (internal quotation omitted) (vacated as moot by Bolick
v. Danielson, 330 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2003)). Indeed, support
for such an approach is literally of early vintage. Thomas Jef-
IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS 13
ferson argued that "[n]o nation is drunken where wine is
cheap; and none sober, where the dearness of wine substitutes
ardent spirits as the common beverage." Letter from Thomas
Jefferson to Jean Guillaume, Baron Hyde de Neuville (Dec.
13, 1818), in A Jefferson Profile as Revealed in His Letters
301 (Saul K. Padover ed., 1956).
And in identifying distilled spirits as a matter of special
regulatory concern, Virginia is anything but unique. Like Vir-
ginia, most states adopted ABC statutes that "placed more
stringent requirements on interests dealing in distilled spirits
. . . since distilled spirits, of course, contain a significantly
higher alcoholic content than beer and wine." California Beer
Wholesalers Assn., Inc. v. Alcoholic Bev. Control Appeals
Bd., 487 P.2d 745, 749 (Cal. 1971). Taxes are higher on dis-
tilled liquor than on beverages with lower concentrations of
alcohol—indeed, one state’s highest court held it a violation
of the state constitution to tax beverages whose alcoholic con-
tent was no greater than that of wine at the much higher rates
applicable to distilled spirits, finding it "impossible to ignore
this natural progression in alcoholic content by volume." See
Federated Distributors, Inc. v. Johnson, 530 N.E.2d 501, 509
(Ill. 1988).
Similarly, licenses allowing the sale of mixed beverages are
often costlier than licenses allowing only drinks with lower
alcoholic contents, reflecting the fact "either that the legisla-
ture believed that a restaurant selling all liquors would ordi-
narily do a different kind of business or that it was
contemplated that it would cost more to police it." JPM Inv.
Group, Inc. v. Brevard County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 818
So.2d 595, 599 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Salerni v.
Scheuy, 102 A.2d 528, 530 (Conn. 1954)). Widespread legis-
lative recognition of the special need to regulate mixed bever-
ages stands as an empirical demonstration of its own.
The prevalence and durability of Virginia’s distinction in
no way render it wrong, at least not where a state is exercising
14 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
its "inherent police powers" "to prohibit the sale of alcoholic
beverages in inappropriate locations." 44 Liquormart, Inc. v.
Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 515 (1996). The provisions at
issue comprise part of Virginia’s "long-established alcohol
control law" and represent but one facet of the comprehensive
regulatory approach the Commonwealth has adopted. Caran-
dola I, 303 F.3d. at 514. Those provisions appear alongside a
variety of other measures minimizing secondary effects and
plainly related to preserving public order, and they "are most
naturally viewed as companion provisions, also intended to
prevent such societal ills." Id. at 515; see Va. Code § 4.1-
325(20).
Courts have no warrant to supplant a state’s policy prefer-
ences with our own. We have no trouble concluding that Vir-
ginia’s "inferences appear reasonable." Alameda Books, 535
U.S. at 452 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment). That
businesses like Papermoon are capable of producing harmful
secondary effects, that intoxication exacerbates those effects,
that more intoxication means more exacerbation, and that
mixed beverages may lead to more intoxication are proposi-
tions whose sensible nature would lead to a Supreme Court
slap of any hand that invalidated them. Taken together, they
provide "fair[ ] support" for the Commonwealth’s policy, and
the ABC Board carried its burden. Id. at 438 (plurality).
D.
Virginia has thus demonstrated the necessary relationship
between its mixed beverage restriction and its substantial
interest in reducing negative secondary effects. We turn there-
fore to Papermoon’s rebuttal of the ABC Board’s showing.
Evidence rebutting the government’s justification for a sec-
ondary effects regulation, however, must do more than chal-
lenge the government’s rationale; it must convincingly
discredit the foundation upon which the government’s justifi-
cation rests. See Carandola I, 303 F.3d at 516. Papermoon
largely relied on the study produced by its expert, Professor
IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS 15
Daniel Linz, and that evidence falls short of the "clear and
convincing" standard necessary to sustain its challenge. Id.
For a start, Linz’s before-and-after analysis focused only on
Papermoon. But officials "need not show that each individual
adult establishment actually generates the undesired second-
ary effects." Independence News, Inc. v. City of Charlotte,
568 F.3d 148, 156 (4th Cir. 2009). Since the Virginia policy
could be sustained if sexually oriented businesses "as a cate-
gory" produce secondary effects when mixed beverages are
served, Linz’s study hardly undermined the government’s
case. Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Knox County, 555 F.3d 512,
532 (6th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the study was based on only
nine months of data, yet as Linz candidly acknowledged, a
study of crime rates should be based on at least three years of
information. And more generally, there was reason to be
skeptical about how well his conclusions about Papermoon
matched the governing legal standard since Linz has sought
to debunk altogether the idea that sexually oriented businesses
generate secondary effects as a "legal myth."
The Commonwealth also contests the data sets he used. The
Richmond data he obtained referred to "founded" incidents of
crime but he acknowledged that the term is "not defined fur-
ther by the police department" and that he had "found no
other definition." He also admitted that he did not know
whether the addresses included with the crime data always
referred to the place where a crime was committed, and in any
event he did not account for crime that may be linked to
Papermoon but that actually occurred outside the narrow zone
of geographic proximity he had designated. His Springfield
data, meanwhile, did not include many relevant crimes,
including disorderly conduct, drunkenness, driving under the
influence, homicide, interference with police, prostitution,
threatening bodily harm, various weapons offenses, and so on.
So while the Linz study and others may well be of interest to
legislatures or those formulating policy, it does not provide
16 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
the kind of "clear and convincing" evidence needed to rebut
the government’s showing and invalidate the regulation.
E.
We need not dwell further on the particulars of the ABC
Board’s showing or the problems with Papermoon’s rebuttal,
however, for there is a simpler principle to be respected. The
notion that the decisions of democratically accountable bodies
must be set aside because of an absence of some unspecified
quantum of social science support or the presence of a con-
flicting study commissioned by a litigant is one we must
approach with skepticism. "As a general matter, courts should
not be in the business of second-guessing fact-bound empiri-
cal assessments" made by lawmakers. Alameda Books, 535
U.S. at 451 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment). A local
policymaking body "knows the streets . . . better than we do.
It is entitled to rely on that knowledge; and if its inferences
appear reasonable, we should not say there is no basis for its
conclusion." Id. at 452 (citation omitted).
Papermoon insists, however, that there is no evidence in the
record showing that people drinking liquor at strip clubs cause
more problems than people drinking beer or wine. We agree
with Papermoon that no empirical study has been presented
that correlates criminal activity to the particular alcoholic bev-
erage consumed, but we disagree that empirical support is
needed for the perfectly sensible legislative proposition that
someone drinking liquor at a strip club will get more intoxi-
cated than someone drinking beer or wine over the same
amount of time and hence be more likely to cross permissible
lines. Of course there will be many occasions when legislators
will wish to consult empirical work. But much in life is not
easily reduced to data sets, and there are limits on how much
lawmakers’ judgment can be subjected to the argumentative
rounds and elusive requirements of statistical validation.
Policymakers "must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to
experiment with solutions to admittedly serious problems."
IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS 17
Renton, 475 U.S. at 52 (quotation marks omitted). Legislative
bodies have the advantage both of commonsense practicality
and constituent accountability. And "appeal to common
sense," Alameda Books, 535 U.S. at 439 (plurality), and
"common experience," id. at 452 (Kennedy, J., concurring in
the judgment), are what the Supreme Court has approved. We
risk violence, then, to democratic principles and to prudent
and innovative governance when we make the validity of leg-
islation turn on wars of competing studies. There remains a
place in the legislative process for the exercise of simple rea-
son and sound judgment, just as there remains a place in the
judicial process for the exercise of some restraint.
These considerations are particularly salient where, as here,
lawmakers have sought a middle ground that balances com-
peting demands. Courts often are not equipped to craft such
compromises and must take special care not to hamstring
those who are. Where compromise embodies invidious dis-
tinctions, special scrutiny is demanded. But the distinction
between beer and wine on the one hand and distilled spirits
on the other is anything but invidious, and to strike down such
classifications risks pushing lawmakers away from compro-
mise and toward more polar postures.
It bears repeating that more severe policies, under which
alcohol is completely forbidden at establishments like Paper-
moon, have been repeatedly upheld in the face of constitu-
tional challenge. See Daytona Grand, 490 F.3d at 886 ("[A]ny
artistic or communicative elements present in such conduct
are not of a kind whose content or effectiveness is dependent
upon being conveyed where alcoholic beverages are served.")
(quoting Grand Faloon Tavern, Inc. v. Wicker, 670 F.2d 943,
948 (11th Cir. 1982)); Ben’s Bar, 316 F.3d at 726 ("The First
Amendment does not entitle Ben’s Bar, its dancers, or its
patrons, to have alcohol available during a ‘presentation’ of
nude or semi-nude dancing."). Were we to invalidate a policy
restricting only distilled spirits, the Commonwealth’s
response might well be to ban alcohol at sexually oriented
18 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
businesses outright. The First Amendment does not demand
that we distort the political process in such a fashion.
None of this is to say that Virginia’s policy is unassailable
or even right. But the primary means to challenge legislative
misconceptions is through the channels of representative gov-
ernment: hearings, speeches, conversations, debates, the
whole clamorous drama of democracy that leads to the enact-
ment of the given law. In the First Amendment context, those
affected by restrictions designed to combat secondary effects
may of course demonstrate that the justification for a particu-
lar restriction rests on "shoddy data or reasoning." Alameda
Books, 535 U.S. at 438 (plurality). But to invoke the power
of the judiciary to set the policy aside, such evidence must be
sufficiently convincing to "prove[ ] unsound" the govern-
ment’s justification for its policy. See id. at 453 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring in the judgment). Here the evidence is not.
III.
Papermoon also challenges portions of the Virginia ABC
statutes as unconstitutionally vague and unconstitutionally
overbroad. As with its substantive First Amendment claim,
we find these objections to be without merit.
A.
We begin with Papermoon’s vagueness challenge. In
assessing a vagueness challenge, a court must ask whether the
government’s policy is "set out in terms that the ordinary per-
son exercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently under-
stand and comply with." Carandola II, 470 F.3d at 1079
(citation omitted). While laws that regulate expression are
subjected to "stricter standards," Smith v. California, 361 U.S.
147, 151 (1959), "perfect clarity and precise guidance have
never been required even of regulations that restrict expres-
sive activity." Ward, 491 U.S. at 794.
IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS 19
Two different sections of the ABC Act prohibit mixed bev-
erages at establishments like Papermoon. The first requires
that the ABC Board suspend the mixed beverage license of
any establishment hosting "what is commonly called stripteas-
ing, topless entertaining, and the like, or which has employees
who are not clad both above and below the waist, or who
uncommonly expose the body." See Va. Code § 4.1-226(2)(i);
see also id. § 4.1-223(3)(i). The second provides that a mixed
beverage licensee may not allow "any striptease act on the
licensed premises" or "persons connected with the licensed
business to appear nude or partially nude." See id. §§ 4.1-
325(12), (13). Papermoon argues that the terms "stripteasing"
and "striptease," and the phrases "clad both above and below
the waist" and "partially nude" are unconstitutionally vague
because it is unclear how much clothing has to be worn to sat-
isfy their requirements.
We find this argument unpersuasive. As the district court
noted, "striptease" is defined straightforwardly as "a burlesque
act in which a performer removes clothing piece by piece."
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1166 (10th ed.
1999); see also Barnes, 501 U.S. at 581 (Souter, J., concur-
ring in the judgment) (describing a striptease as "a dancer’s
acts in going from clothed to nude . . . integrated into the
dance and its expressive function."). The term is clearly one
of common usage and given the erotic fashion in which
clothes are removed, "a ‘striptease’ performance, we think,
speaks for itself." City of New Orleans v. Kiefer, 164 So.2d
336, 339 (La. 1964).
Nor do we think that in this context the term "partially
nude" is vague. Nudity, as a matter of everyday speech, refers
to the absence of clothing, exposing those parts of the body
commonly denominated "private." Partial nudity would thus
refer to the partial exposure of the private parts. Not surpris-
ingly, that is precisely what the ABC regulation governing
mixed beverage licenses provides, forbidding "less than a
fully-opaque covering of the genitals, pubic hair or buttocks,
20 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
or any portion of the breast below the top of the areola." 3 Va.
Admin. Code § 5-50-140(B). This language tracks the defini-
tion of "nudity" elsewhere in Virginia law. See Va. Code
§ 18.2-390(2); see also, e.g., Iowa Code § 709.21(2)(a); Md.
Code Ann., Crim. Law § 11-203(a)(6); Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
272, § 105(a); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.250(1); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat.
§ 7507.1(e); Utah Code Ann. § 76-5a-2(6); W. Va. Code
§ 61-8-28(a)(1); Wis. Stat. § 942.08(1)(a). The meaning of the
phrase "clad both above and below the waist" is similarly
apparent: Papermoon’s dancers may not dance "topless" or
"bottomless." Again, the regulations make it clear that if
mixed beverages are to be served, g-strings, pasties, and other
such fig leaves will not do, as Papermoon itself well under-
stands.
Quite frankly, Papermoon’s vagueness challenge depends
on wishful thinking. It is clear what conduct the ABC mixed
beverage policy reaches—and that what it reaches is what
Papermoon’s dancers do. The risk that dancers at clubs like
Papermoon will be "chilled" into donning more clothing than
the law requires is slim indeed.
B.
Finally, we consider Papermoon’s overbreadth challenge.
The overbreadth doctrine allows a party to "challenge a stat-
ute on its face because it also threatens others not before the
court—those who desire to engage in legally protected
expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk
prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially
invalid." Bd. of Airport Comm’rs v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482
U.S. 569, 574 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, the overbreadth doctrine is "strong medicine" to
be applied "sparingly and only as a last resort." Broadrick v.
Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613 (1973). A court properly holds
a law facially invalid on overbreadth grounds only where its
overbreadth is "substantial . . . judged in relation to the stat-
ute’s plainly legitimate sweep." Id. at 615.
IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS 21
As discussed, Virginia’s prohibition on mixed beverages at
venues like Papermoon is within the statutes’ legitimate
sweep. And cultural venues offering "matters of serious liter-
ary, artistic, scientific, or political value" are properly
exempted. Va. Code §§ 4.1-226(2), -325(C); 3 Va. Admin.
Code § 5-50-140(C). Papermoon stresses that the overwhelm-
ing majority of establishments licensed to sell mixed bever-
ages in Virginia are not "adult entertainment establishments"
and still would not come within the exception for cultural
venues. But that is beside the point since an ordinary bar is
unlikely to have its employees strip or otherwise have their
breasts or buttocks exposed (much less for expressive pur-
poses). And one that did allow such displays might plausibly
be linked to the secondary effects Virginia has targeted. Per-
fection is not required to survive an overbreadth challenge—
a statute that shields "most protected activity" is permissible.
Carandola II, 470 F.3d at 1085. Here, we see few, if any,
likely applications of the policy that would be forbidden by
the Constitution.
Indeed, the matter should be beyond debate since the
exception for cultural venues Virginia adopted uses word-for-
word the same language that cured North Carolina’s over-
breadth problem in Carandola II. See Carandola II, 470 F.3d
at 1083-84. Papermoon attempts to distinguish the case, argu-
ing that the policy Carandola addressed only prohibited out-
right nudity while Virginia’s additionally prohibits even the
near-nudity of g-strings and pasties where mixed beverages
are served. We do not see, however, how this additional
requirement is likely to inflict further collateral damage on
protected expression. The range of expressive activities
dependent upon exposing the buttocks or breasts pretty well
coincides with the range of those dependent on exposing the
genitals. And if, as Papermoon strenuously urges, Carandola
II’s conclusion that the statutes there at issue were not over-
broad depended on the mildness of the restriction they
imposed, then we must point out once again that a policy
22 IMAGINARY IMAGES v. EVANS
merely forbidding mixed beverages where erotic perfor-
mances take place is likewise anything but draconian.
IV.
Where governmental action is involved, a constitution
exists in part to prune extremes. Where intermediate scrutiny
is concerned, it is not wrong for moderation in the political
process to find a constitutional home. The Commonwealth
has demonstrated moderation in its efforts to balance the
expressive value in erotic dancing with the unwanted encour-
agement of secondary effects. That courts should not be
turned into appellate legislatures should go without saying,
but it is particularly true where the political process has not
sought to push the constitutional envelope and where lawmak-
ers have responded conscientiously to prior opinions of this
and other courts. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.