John
03-28-2010, 08:29 AM
Clubs say the fee - known as the "pole tax" - is unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson asked lawyers for the strip clubs: "Is it proper or not for the state to have the position that live nude dancing should be discouraged?
"Is it unconstitutional for the state to target live nude dancing because it believes it's culturally unsound, immoral?"
The admission fee was introduced three years ago with the income intended to fund programmes for sexual assault victims.
The Texas Entertainment Association, which represents strip clubs across the state, sued and a district judge struck down the law in 2008.
Another court then ruled that the tax improperly singles out one form of expression, nude dancing, for regulation.
The estimated $13m (about £8.7m) already collected in fees is being held in an account pending the outcome of the legal battle.
Figures from the state's accountants show that around 2.7 millions strip club customers have paid the fee since it took effect, although many clubs ignore the fee.
The case is being watched closely by authorities in New York and Georgia which have proposed a similar fee on clubs.
In Texas, the law applies specifically to strip clubs that sell alcohol.
Because the state could ban both practices, solicitor general James Ho told the nine Republican justices, the fee was justified.
He said: "It would be turning the first amendment on its head to say that you can criminalise but can't impose a modest regulation."
Much of the debate focused on the dancers' right to "freedom of expression".
Their lawyer, Craig Enoch, was asked what exactly nude dancers express in their shows.
"Eroticism," he replied. "It's seeking to create emotion."
A ruling is not expected for several months.
Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson asked lawyers for the strip clubs: "Is it proper or not for the state to have the position that live nude dancing should be discouraged?
"Is it unconstitutional for the state to target live nude dancing because it believes it's culturally unsound, immoral?"
The admission fee was introduced three years ago with the income intended to fund programmes for sexual assault victims.
The Texas Entertainment Association, which represents strip clubs across the state, sued and a district judge struck down the law in 2008.
Another court then ruled that the tax improperly singles out one form of expression, nude dancing, for regulation.
The estimated $13m (about £8.7m) already collected in fees is being held in an account pending the outcome of the legal battle.
Figures from the state's accountants show that around 2.7 millions strip club customers have paid the fee since it took effect, although many clubs ignore the fee.
The case is being watched closely by authorities in New York and Georgia which have proposed a similar fee on clubs.
In Texas, the law applies specifically to strip clubs that sell alcohol.
Because the state could ban both practices, solicitor general James Ho told the nine Republican justices, the fee was justified.
He said: "It would be turning the first amendment on its head to say that you can criminalise but can't impose a modest regulation."
Much of the debate focused on the dancers' right to "freedom of expression".
Their lawyer, Craig Enoch, was asked what exactly nude dancers express in their shows.
"Eroticism," he replied. "It's seeking to create emotion."
A ruling is not expected for several months.