Does the secondary-effects-doctrine survive Reed-v-Town-of-Gilbert and City-of-Austin-v-Reagan-National-Advertising

question presented is what quantum of evidence is sufficient to cast doubt on a municipality’s rationale for such an ordinance, under the plurality opinion in Alameda Books? 3. Justice Kennedy provided the fifth vote for reversal in Alameda Books, and the lower courts have uniformly held his concurring opinion is controlling under Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977). i Under his test, a city must show “that its regulation has the purpose and effect of suppressing secondary effects while leaving the quantity and accessibility of speech substantially intact.” Jd. at 449 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Here, the district court found that the evidence established that the City’s Ordinance failed that test as well, but the Fifth Circuit also rejected that conclusion. Thus, the further question presented is whether an ordinance requiring the closure of speech businesses during certain hours, on a record showing a substantial reduction of speech, violates Justice Kennedy’s effect on speech test? ii