held that regulations like the Open Booth Restrictions leave open ample alternative channels of communication.”) (citations omitted); Schultz, 228 F.3d at 846 (explaining that an hour restriction similar to that of this case was “not ‘substantially broader than necessary,’ even if more restrictive than absolutely necessary”) (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 800, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989)). 3. Prior Restraint/Prompt Judicial Review Plaintiffs argue that the Ordinance is invalid because it does not demand prompt judicial review of a decision to deny, suspend, or revoke a license. Plaintiffs also concede that this argument is foreclosed by our decision in Graff v. City of Chicago, but nevertheless ask us to reconsider. 9 F.3d 1309 (7th Cir.1993) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). We see no reason to reconsider Graff on this
holding that common law review of a licensing decision was sufficient holding that licensing and inspection of daycare facilities are inherently governmental functions which find no private analog or duty of care in our common law holding that trial court did not err in basing decision on local customary law rather than common law holding that district courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review by common law certiorari decision of circuit court upholding county court conviction obtained in violation of constitution recognizing common law privileges