PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1293

MICHAEL MOSHOURES,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH; DANA CROWELL, in her official capacity as Chief of the North Myrtle Beach Department of Public Safety,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joshua Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:22-cv-02123-JD)

Argued: October 31, 2024 Decided: March 11, 2025

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Reversed in part and remanded by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, which Chief Judge Diaz and Judge Richardson joined.

ARGUED: Meredith Dyer McPhail, ACLU OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Marcus Angelo Manos, MAYNARD NEXSEN, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Allen Chaney, ACLU OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elbert S. Dorn, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Kirsten E. Small, Greenville, South Carolina, Alexandra H. Austin, Rhett D. Ricard, MAYNARD NEXSEN, PC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1293 Doc: 38 Filed: 03/11/2025 Pg: 2 of 17

TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge:

A city ordinance makes it a crime “to broadcast obscene, profane or vulgar language

from any commercial property” above certain volumes at certain times. A bar owner sued,

arguing the ordinance violates the First Amendment. This appeal involves only the portion

of the ordinance restricting “vulgar” language.

The district court declined to enjoin the vulgar-language provision because it viewed

it as only restricting speech that is obscene as a constitutional matter and thus could be

prohibited entirely. We disagree. Applying well-settled principles of statutory construction,

we conclude the vulgar-language provision reaches at least some constitutionally protected

speech and that it is constitutionally invalid. We thus reverse the district court’s judgment

in part and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Like many other municipalities, the City of North Myrtle Beach restricts loud

sounds in public places. In 2021, the city amended its general noise ordinance to impose

special restrictions on “[t]he use of sound equipment to broadcast obscene, profane, or

vulgar language from any commercial property, private property, public right-of-way or

city property.” JA 22. Between 7:01 a.m. and 10:59 p.m., such sounds may be no louder

than 30 decibels—roughly equivalent to rustling leaves or a whisper—“as measured from

the boundary with the adjacent neighboring commercial property, private property, public

right-of-way or city property.” Id. Between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., such sounds cannot

exceed 50 decibels—somewhere between average home noise and normal conversation.

Like other provisions of the city’s noise ordinance, violations are punishable by up to 30

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1293 Doc: 38 Filed: 03/11/2025 Pg: 3 of 17

days in jail and fines of up to $500.

Michael Moshoures owns a venue called Sky Bar. After receiving several warnings

for violating the amended ordinance, Moshoures sued the city and two of its officials in

federal district court, arguing the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document