Vivid Entertainment, LLC, et al. v. Jonathan Fielding, Director of Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, et. al.

774 F.3d 566 (2014)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Vivid Entertainment, LLC, et al. v. Jonathan Fielding, Director of Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, et. al.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
774 F.3d 566 (2014)

  • Written by Haley Gintis, JD

Facts

In 2012 Los Angeles County enacted the Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act (Measure B). Measure B imposed multiple requirements on adult-film producers, including the requirement that all performers exposed to blood-borne pathogens through vaginal or anal intercourse wear condoms. In response to the condom requirement, Vivid Entertainment, LLC, and others involved in the adult-film industry (collectively, the industry) (plaintiff) filed an action in federal district court against Jonathan Fielding (defendant), who was the Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (the department). The industry claimed that the condom mandate violated its right to freedom of expression granted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The industry argued that condomless sex performances convey a different message about the risks and concerns of sex than sex performances with condoms portray. The industry further argued that requiring condoms amounted to a complete ban on expression, which triggered strict-scrutiny review. Alternatively, the industry argued that even under immediate-scrutiny review, the condom requirement was not narrowly tailored to protect public health, because the industry had already implemented measures to protect its performers from blood-borne pathogens. However, the department submitted evidence that a previous investigation revealed that performers in the industry had a much higher rate of sexually transmitted infections than the general population. The purpose of the department’s evidence was to show the ineffectiveness of the industry’s protective measures. The district court found that the industry’s protective measures were ineffective, and that the industry was unlikely to succeed on a First Amendment claim concerning the condom requirement. The district court denied the industry’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. The matter was appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Graber, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership