In the Carl M. Miles, et al. v. City Council of Augusta, Georgia, et al. 551 F. Supp. 349 Plaintiffs contended the Augusta, Ga. Ordinance No. 5006 requiring them to obtain a business license for “Blackie – The Talking Cat”. It is undisputed that Blackie the cat is the main source for their income and requires them to spend most of their days soliciting money for Blackie’s performance. In the case Broadrick, et al. v. Oklahoma et al., 413 U.S. 601; 93 S. Ct. 2908, state employees appealed a district court’s decision that ruled in favor of defendants, the State of Oklahoma. The appeals court determined the Okla. Stat. tit. 74, §818, regulating political activity of civil servants, was constitutional because it gave clear warning of banned …show more content…
It also clearly stated who was banned from doing those activities and therefore was not overly broad. This was applied to Carl M. Miles, et al. v. City Council of Augusta, Georgia, et al. because as in Broadrick, et al. v. Oklahoma et al. the Georgia ordnance had a catch all clause that intended to cover all businesses not formally mentioned in the ordnance. The court determined this catch all clause was valid because it would have been impossible to specify every occupation. The court also found that it was clear the ordnance was for taxing businesses that “derive income from the practice of that occupation.” The Plaintiff’s had in previous states attempted to obtain business licenses for “Blackie” but were never required. For all these reasons the court determined that Blackie was a source of income for the Plaintiff’s and required a business license under the law in