HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017CA1103 - APPEAL - FTN - FORT COLLINS V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, ET AL - 017 - CITY'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITYGillian Dale
daleg@hallevans.com
(303) 628-3328
File No. 6139-73
November 15, 2017
Filed and Served via CM/ECF
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80257
Re: Notice of Supplemental Authority
Free the Nipple – Fort Collins v. City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Tenth Circuit Case No. 17-1103
Dear Ms. Shumaker:
Defendant-Appellant City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the “City”) hereby submits this
Notice of Supplemental Authority pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j).
On November 8, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided
Tagami v. City of Chicago, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22410 (7th
Cir. Nov. 8, 2017) (enclosed). In
Tagami, the plaintiff was cited for violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting women from
baring their breasts in public, and brought a lawsuit challenging the ordinance. Like the Plaintiffs
in this case, the plaintiff in Tagami claimed the ordinance violated her right to free speech under
the First Amendment and her right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The
lower court dismissed both claims, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
With respect to the equal protection claim, which is the sole claim at issue in this case, the
Seventh Circuit held that the City of Chicago’s ordinance served important governmental
objectives and the discriminatory means were substantially related to the achievement of those
objectives. The court relied on the government’s interest in promoting traditional moral norms and
public order, and more specifically societal disapproval of nudity in public places among strangers.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s approval in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 568-
69 (1991), of a public nudity ban based on history and tradition, without any requirement of an
evidentiary showing of harm.
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901898 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 1
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
November 15, 2017
Page: 2
Tagami supports the City’s argument that Plaintiffs here can demonstrate no likelihood of
success on the merits because they describe no viable equal protection violation, [Opening Brief
at pp.9-33; Reply Brief at pp.1-17], and rebuts Plaintiffs’ argument that the City’s citation to
authority rejecting equal protection claims under these circumstances is outdated and has been
superseded by more recent equal protection jurisprudence. [Answer Brief at p.26 and n.8].
Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,
s/ Gillian Dale
Andrew D. Ringel
and Gillian Dale
of HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.
Enclosure
cc (w/encl.): David Lane, Esq.
Andy McNulty, Esq.
Jessica K. Peck, Esq.
Carrie M. Daggett, Esq.
John R. Duval, Esq.
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901898 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 2
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 1
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 2
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 4
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 6
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 7
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 8
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 9
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 10
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 11
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 12
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 13
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 14
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 15
Appellate Case: 17-1103 Document: 01019901899 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 Page: 16