## Facts

- Bernard Hughes and other owners/major shareholders operated the Three Captains House of Seafood Restaurant in Bladensburg, Maryland.
- The restaurant had provided live entertainment that included topless dancing.
- The Mayor of Bladensburg and members of the Town Council enacted Ordinance 3-80 addressing “topless or semi-nude entertainment” in establishments serving food or alcoholic beverages.
- The ordinance required any business offering live entertainment while serving food or alcohol to obtain a town entertainment license.
- The ordinance imposed detailed dress and exposure restrictions on entertainers and also on certain employees, banning public display of specified areas, including:
  - genitals or any portion thereof,
  - any portion of pubic hair (including a shaved pubic-hair line),
  - buttocks and any portion of the cleavage between the buttocks, and
  - any portion of the areola or papilla of the female breast, or any area of the breast below those portions.
- The ordinance recited concern about “many problems” associated with the targeted businesses but did not specify what those problems were.
- After the ordinance was enacted and enforced, the restaurant alleged it began operating at a loss and faced possible closure.
- Plaintiffs sued the mayor and town council members in federal court, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking emergency injunctive relief to stop enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether topless dancing in a restaurant constitutes expressive conduct with First Amendment protection such that a municipal ordinance restricting it must meet constitutional standards.
2. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to a temporary restraining order (treated as interim injunctive relief) because they showed a likelihood of success in proving that Ordinance 3-80 unconstitutionally restricted protected expression.
3. Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm and that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored restraining enforcement pending a decision on the merits.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, enjoining enforcement of Ordinance 3-80 pending further proceedings.
- The court treated topless dancing as expressive conduct entitled to at least some First Amendment protection, even if at the outer edges of protected expression.
- The court found plaintiffs had shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits at this early stage because the town relied on a general statement about “many problems” without explaining them or supporting the restriction with specific findings or proof.
- The court concluded plaintiffs faced irreparable harm from the restraint on First Amendment activity and from the asserted threat to the restaurant’s continued operation.
- The court determined that, on the record presented, the hardship to plaintiffs from enforcing the ordinance outweighed the town’s interest in immediate enforcement of a constitutionally doubtful measure.

## Legal Principles

- Nude or topless dancing may qualify as expressive conduct within the First Amendment, though it receives less protection than core political speech.
- A municipality may use police and licensing powers to regulate adult or semi-nude entertainment, but restrictions that burden protected expression require a substantial justification and reasonable fit between ends and means.
- Conclusory legislative recitals—such as references to unspecified “problems”—may be inadequate support for broad restraints on expressive conduct when the government offers no concrete findings or evidence.
- In First Amendment cases, even temporary loss of protected expressive activity can constitute irreparable injury for purposes of interim relief.
- Interim injunctive relief turns on likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and the public interest, with courts often preserving the status quo where enforcement risks unconstitutional restraint.

## Conclusion

In *Hughes v. Cristofane*, the District of Maryland restrained Bladensburg from enforcing Ordinance 3-80 against a restaurant offering topless dancing because the plaintiffs made a strong preliminary showing that the ordinance burdened protected expressive conduct without specific, supported justification, and that enforcement threatened irreparable First Amendment and business harms pending resolution on the merits.


Hughes v. Cristofane, 486 F. Supp. 541 (1980)