## Facts

- Brookpark Entertainment, Inc. operated the Crazy Horse Saloon in Cleveland, Ohio, under liquor permits issued by the Ohio Department of Liquor Control.
- The Department suspended Brookpark’s permits after finding violations of Ohio liquor control laws.
- During the suspension period, Brookpark sold alcoholic beverages in violation of the suspension order.
- Ohio law allowed voters in the precinct where a permit premises was located, after a permit violation, to initiate a petition and hold a local option election to revoke that establishment’s liquor permits.
- Precinct citizens began the petition process to place on the ballot a question to revoke Brookpark’s permits.
- Brookpark filed a federal action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the local option revocation mechanism violated due process and equal protection.

## Issues

1. Whether an Ohio liquor permit is a Fourteenth Amendment “property” interest triggering federal procedural due process protections.
2. Whether Ohio’s statutory scheme authorizing local voters to revoke a specific establishment’s liquor permits by referendum is unconstitutional on its face under the Due Process Clause.
3. Whether the local option scheme violates equal protection by subjecting certain permit holders to disparate treatment without a sufficient governmental justification.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the state and county officials.
- The court held that Ohio liquor permits are revocable privileges under state law, not constitutionally protected property interests.
- Because Brookpark lacked a protected property interest, its federal due process claim failed at the threshold.
- The court rejected Brookpark’s additional constitutional challenges, including equal protection.
- Summary judgment was appropriate because Brookpark brought a facial challenge presenting legal issues without material factual disputes.

## Legal Principles

- Property interests protected by the Due Process Clause arise from state law rules or understandings that create a legitimate claim of entitlement, not from the Constitution alone.
- Under Ohio law, liquor permits are subject to broad regulatory control and may be suspended or revoked; they do not confer a vested right to continued operation.
- States have wide authority to regulate the sale of alcohol, including conditioning continued permit status on compliance with liquor laws and on local option electoral mechanisms.
- Facial equal protection challenges to liquor regulation are evaluated under rational basis review absent a suspect classification or fundamental right; the scheme is valid if rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives such as temperance and local control.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Ohio’s local option process for revoking a specific establishment’s liquor permits after permit violations, concluding that the permit holder had no Fourteenth Amendment property interest in an Ohio liquor permit and that the statutory scheme survived the remaining constitutional attacks.


Brookpark Ent., Inc. v. Taft, 951 F.2d 710 (6th Cir. 1991)