Administrative Law to the Rescue:

Social Propriety in the State of Utola

The State of Utola comprises a relatively new national entity. Subsequent to successful
negotiations with Mexico, the United States acquired certain property off the coast of
California. This property ultimately became a national territory. After much speculation and
numerous political maneuvers, the territory of Utola became a full-fledged state of the United
States.

Given its proximity to California, the State of Utola enjoys a robust economy focused on tourism
and entertainment. With its tropical climate and picturesque setting, Utola became a haven for
such entertainment icons as Disney, Beyondsee, DeBaby, Ted Hansheer and Brake. With
entertainment as its main industry, Utola commanded a sizable per capita income that
averaged over $100,000 per resident.

With success, however, comes complications. Tourism and the proliferation of entertainment
led to the sprawl of nightclubs that cater to a variety of clientele. Similar to cities such as Las
Vegas, New York and Los Angeles, Utola’s clubs had a range of tastes. Some were considered
“high scale” and booked such acts as Madame Dada, Dionne Streisand, Meyer John and Dane
Newton.

Notwithstanding the high-class acts at certain clubs in Utola, other clubs booked controversial
acts. In particular, the notorious Noholes Bar Club caters to young adults with acts that
specialize in grunge bands, alternative rock and heavy metal.

Another club called Race Hipsta Locator specialized in the employment of exotic dancers. Race
Hipsta offers what they deem diverse entertainment, meaning that they use both male and
female exotic dancers on alternative nights. While the club considers this entertainment artistic
expression, patrons of Race Hipsta have indicated that the dances at the club generally gyrate
to very suggestive music, some of which containing profane lyrics, with dancers taking off most
of their clothes during performances. Although the dancers we never nude, they were often
clad in G-strings and thongs at the conclusion of their performances. Notwithstanding
questionable social taste and the ire of concerned parental groups and other civic
organizations, Race Hipsta’s success has been phenomenal with each performance drawing a
packed house.

A third club, Cave At Emptier (also referred to as “Cave”), plays hip-hop and heavy metal and
allows patrons to dance, if so moved. In an effort to hold down costs, the owners of Cave play
music from self-edited playlists compiled from pre-recorded music, rather than purchasing the
services of licensed music providers. Cave’s practice of using their copied playlists infuriated
recording companies and prompted numerous complaints to the Utola legislature.

A barrage of complaints regarding the propriety of “questionable” music, reports of “lewd and
lascivious” actions of exotic dancers at the various clubs and complaints about music licensure
violations began to stream in. Utola’s legislature decided that something had to be done to
contain the adverse influences of certain clubs. Given the multifaceted problems that the
legislature sought to address, immediate solutions seemed elusive.

The legislature debated for months over the appropriate means to address the problems
associated with these clubs. Despite countless proposals, no single viable solution appeared
acceptable to a majority of the legislative body. An important question remains: Can the State
of Utola exercise legally viable controls of the activities of the rapidly burgeoning nightclub
scene?

Utola State Senator Bob Sackwood put forward a proposal. He suggested that the state’s Liquor
Control Board, which had already been created to monitor the licensing of establishments
serving or selling alcoholic beverages, assume the task of overseeing nightclubs in the state.
Senator Sackwood’s idea garnered significant support.

The legislature ultimately passed a statue that, inter alia, amended the original law that
creating the Liquor Control Board, providing the board additional authority “to implement any
and all regulations or rules necessary to ensure that establishments serving or selling alcoholic
beverages maintain a safe and orderly environment, thereby preserving the safety, well-being
and integrity of the public at large, while promoting compliance with all federal state and local
laws.” This amendment included legislative history documenting the legislature’s concern
regarding the adverse effects of grunge and heavy metal music, along with concerns related to
the “lewd and lascivious conduct“ of semi-nude dancers, the alleged nexus between suggestive
music and dance, alcohol and illicit drug abuse and the use of self-recorded music that impinges
upon applicable licensing provisions.

Utola’s Liquor Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board“), subsequent to the
amended statute passed by the legislature, proceeded to issue operative regulations governing
liquor licensing and regulation of night clubs. Among those regulations are the following:

Section 101. Any establishment of a commercial or business purpose that sells or serves
alcoholic beverages to patrons must have a license from the State of Utola Liquor Control Board
(hereinafter referred to as the “Board”).

Section 202. To obtain a license, and establishment must file an application with the Board, pay
the designated fee of $4000, pass an inspection, conducted by agents of the Board, of the clubs’
facilities, adhere to all rules and regulations promulgated by the Board, as well as applicable
laws of the State of Utola and the United States of America.

Section 303. All establishments must assume the fiduciary responsibility to protect or safeguard
minors, thereby refusing to sell or serve alcoholic beverages to anyone under the age of 21 and
limiting entertainment that may be considered inappropriate for minors.
Section 404. Applicants for a liquor license and current license holders must adhere to all state
and federal copyright laws. Failure to comply with this regulation may lead to either suspension
or revocation of the holder’s liquor license, or fine not greater than $200,000.

Section 505. No license holder, his or her agent, or employee shall knowingly or willfully allow
in, upon, or about his or her premises: conduct violative of locally established standards of
decency of any kind, type or character; any improper disturbances, lewd, immoral activities or
brawls; or any indecent, profane or obscene language whether in music, entertainment,
literature, pictures or advertising materials; nor shall any establishment host or sponsor
entertainment consisting of the spoken language or songs that can or may convey, either
directly or by implication, the promotion of any immoral, unlawful or violent behavior.
Entertainment consisting of dancing, either solo or otherwise, that may, either directly or by
implication, be or suggestive of lewd, lascivious or immoral behavior.

Section 606. Any license holder found in violation of any of the regulations of the Board or any
other state or federal laws may be subject to suspension or revocation of their liquor license or
incur a fine up to but not more than $200,000. License holders who are subject to such
sanctions shall be given notice if such violations, the sanctions imposed, the reasons for those
sanctions, and an opportunity to address the Board in hearing, requested in writing not later
than 24 hours after notice of the sanction(s) has been issued.

Section 707. Any license holder whose license has been subject to suspension or revocation has
a right to have their case heard by a hearing examiner not involved in the matter that led to the
initial suspension or revocation. The decision of this hearing examiner may, upon request by
the license holder, be referred to the Head of the Board for review and final disposition. Once
the Head of the Board has issued a final decision and the license holder may, within 14 days of
the issuance of a final decision, petition for review of the final decision to a Utola state court of
general jurisdiction. A decision of the state court will be final.

Having empowered the Board, state legislators are happy. Civic groups, concerned about the
alleged negative influences of some of the clubs in Utola, have rejoiced. The Board, which has
hired a phalanx of lawyers and staff to assist in the regulation of the entertainment industry in
the state, seems to relish its considerable increase in power and influence. The owners of the
Noholes Bar, Race Hipsta Locater, Cave At Emptier and other clubs, however, remain
apprehensive.
 Questions to Consider

1.Why does control of clubs in Utola implicate an issue of administrative law?

2.What are the competing interests of the parties (i.e., club owners, parents, legislators, etc.) in
this problem?

3.Why does the legislature employ the Liquor Control Board to address the problems
concerning night clubs?

4.What issues are associated with the attempt to control the “objectionable“ activities as some
of the clubs in Utola?

5.What problems, if any, do you see with the Liquor Control Board’s regulations?

6.Explain whether the legislature, through the Liquor Control Board, will be effective in
controlling this “objectionable” activity at night clubs.

7.If not the Liquor Control Board, what other office or agency could be used to regulate these
clubs?

8.If the legislature did not designate the Liquor Control Board to address this issue, what other
strategies or methods could have been employed to address the alleged problems associated
with the night clubs?