By Tim Gaynor
The ruling stemmed from a dispute between tattoo artists Ryan and Laetitia Coleman and the Phoenix valley city of Mesa, which denied the pair a business permit three years ago to set up shop in a local strip mall.
The Colemans, an American-French couple who live and work in the French city of Nice, originally applied to Mesa in July 2008 for a business permit, and city zoning staff recommended it be issued to them the following February.
After a public hearing, the board voted to recommend
the council deny the permit, arguing the shop was "not appropriate for
the location or in the best interest of the neighbourhood," according to
court documents.The Colemans filed a lawsuit in 2009 alleging violations to their rights to free speech, due process and equal protection under both the U.S. and state constitutions. The suit was dismissed by the Maricopa County Superior Court.
"Recognizing that
tattooing involves constitutionally protected speech, we hold that the
superior court erred by dismissing the complaint as a matter of law,"
the state Supreme Court said in its ruling.
The ruling does not
mean that Mesa must allow the Colemans to open their tattoo parlour,
only that the court erred in dismissing their suit. It noted that cities
had the right to regulate business location through zoning ordinances
and that the "factual dispute" between the parties would have to be
determined at trial.
The Colemans have
sought a ruling allowing them to open their parlour and want
compensation for business lost over the past three years.
"It is very
significant ... Tattoo artists are often subjected to enormous
regulation, especially in terms of operating their businesses," their
attorney, Clint Bolick, told Reuters.
"As a result we now know that in Arizona, tattoo artists will be able to ply their trade free from excessive regulation," he added.
The question of
whether tattooing is protected speech had been litigated in other U.S.
states with mixed outcomes, Bolick said, adding the Arizona decision was
the first by a state Supreme Court to affirm it was protected speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment