4th Circuit upholds Myrtle Beach bar closures in crime-ridden Superblock

SUMMARY

• 4th Circuit upheld Myrtle Beach‘s decision to close bars in the Superblock over crime and regulatory violations
• The case stemmed from shootings and assaults in the Superblock during 2015 and 2016
• Bar owners alleged constitutional violations under Takings, Due Process, Equal Protection, and § 1985
• Court ruled no protected property interest in business licenses and found rational basis for enforcement actions

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the city of Myrtle Beach’s decision to close bars in the city’s Superblock, finding the city acted within its authority to address a serious crime problem and enforce regulatory compliance.

The 12-page opinion is Brady v. City of Myrtle Beach.

The case stemmed from a sharp rise in violence in the Superblock in 2015 and 2016, where 11 people were shot and dozens more were assaulted or robbed, mostly in and around a small cluster of bars. After years of heightened police presence and investigations revealed repeated violations of state and local safety regulations, the City revoked business licenses and ultimately shuttered two bars, while a third closed voluntarily.

The plaintiffs — the bar owners and a landlord — sued the city and its manager, asserting constitutional claims under the Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. They argued the city unlawfully targeted their establishments because the owners and patrons were racial minorities and claimed a protected property interest in operating their businesses free from harassment. The 4th Circuit rejected those arguments, noting that neither the right to conduct business nor business licenses qualify as constitutionally protected property interests. Leasehold interests are protected, but the plaintiffs never alleged the City deprived them of possession or use of their leased properties.

The equal protection and due process claims also failed. The court found no evidence of racial animus or irrational “class of one” discrimination. Instead, the city had a rational basis for concentrating enforcement in the Superblock, given its role as a hub of violent crime and repeated regulatory violations by the plaintiffs’ establishments. The city also provided multiple layers of procedural protection before revoking licenses, including investigations, written findings, opportunities to appeal to the City Council, and recourse to state court.

Finding the city’s actions reasonable and lawful, the 4th Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s judgment.

EXTERNAL LINKS

• 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinions
• City of Myrtle Beach official website
• S. Constitution — Due Process and Equal Protection clauses