QUESTIONS PRESENTED
 

     This Court first announced its burden shifting framework for evaluating the constitutionality under the First Amendment of a dispersal ordinance relating to adult businesses in its prior plurality opinion in this matter, Alameda Books et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 535 U.S. 425 (2002). Under Alameda Books, once a municipality produces evidence that fairly supports the municipality’s rationale for its ordinance, the burden shifts to plaintiffs to cast “direct doubt” on the government’s rationale, with “actual and convincing” evidence. If plaintiffs succeed in casting doubt on a municipality’s rationale, the burden shifts back to the municipality to supplement the record with evidence renewing support for a theory that justifies its ordinance.
 

     Does this burden shifting framework require upholding a municipal zoning ordinance which prohibits the operation of more than one Adult Entertainment Business at a single location, including the operation of an Adult Arcade within an Adult Bookstore, when plaintiffs challenging the regulation fail, at the summary judgment stage of proceedings, to produce “actual and convincing” evidence casting “direct doubt” on the city’s rationale for the regulation?
Brief PDF