By David L. Hudson, Jr.

A coalition of grocer associations, tavern owners, beer and wine makers, and advertising groups recently sued the City of Los Angeles in federal court, contending that its ordinance restricting outdoor liquor ads violates the First Amendment.

The ordinance took effect Oct. 23, 1999. Mayor Richard Riordan had signed the measure on Sept. 17, 1998.

The ordinance provides that "no person shall place, permit, or maintain on any on-site or off-site sign, a poster, placard, device, graphic display, or any other form of advertising that advertises alcoholic beverages in publicly visible locations within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, residential use, school, religious institution, entertainment park, youth center, or public park or playground."

The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 23, charges that the ordinance unconstitutionally restricts free-speech rights under the First Amendment and the California Constitution. According to the plaintiffs, the law will adversely affect retailers who use signs in their stores as an "essential advertising tool."

The city's stated purpose for the ordinance is to reduce minors' consumption of alcohol.

According to the plaintiffs in Korean-American Grocers Association v. City of Los Angeles, the city council could have taken other measures to reduce minors' consumption of alcohol without infringing on First Amendment rights.

These include passing stricter laws against the sale of alcohol to minors; increasing enforcement of existing laws; and promoting educational efforts in schools and the community at large about the risks of underage drinking.

The lawsuit asserts that the ordinance "will not directly and materially advance the City's stated purpose of reducing the illegal purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors."

If a judge agrees, the ordinance would fail the U.S. Supreme Court's Central Hudson test for examining the constitutionality of commercial speech regulations. "The widespread sweep of the Ordinance is completely out of proportion to the City's asserted goal," the lawsuit states.

City officials claim the ordinance will survive constitutional review and point to a similar ordinance in Baltimore, which survived a spirited legal challenge.

In Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in an initial 1995 decision -- and on remand after the Supreme Court's 1996 decision in 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island -- that the ordinance passed the Central Hudson test.

In its second opinion, a divided 2-1 panel deferred heavily to the city's interest in protecting children "who are not independently able to assess the value of the message presented." The Fourth Circuit quoted the Supreme Court's statement that "children deserve special solicitude in the First Amendment balance because they lack the ability to assess and analyze fully the information presented through commercial media."

The city filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 10. U.S. District Judge Spencer Letts denied the city's motion on Oct. 15. A pre-trial conference was scheduled for Nov. 19. In the meantime, city officials said they would begin enforcing the ordinance.