invalid or ha[ving] only a. frivolous pretense to validity,” it must be obeyed and challenged directly, not defied; contempt of court trials are not appropriate vehicles to challenge the statutes that underlie the violated court orders. The Supreme Court has also applied the collateral bar rule to licensing schemes, although the rule is relaxed in this context: when a litigant has been denied a license and defies that denial by participating in the licensed expression anyway, he may challenge the licensing scheme, as a whole, as unconstitutional; but he may not challenge his particular denial or restriction as an unconstitutional application of a facially constitutional licensing scheme. Compare Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395, 409, 73 S.Ct. 760, 97 L.Ed. 1105 (1953) (<HOLDING>), with Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394
holding that a where a facially valid licensing scheme had resulted in the denial of a permit to perform a religious service in a public park the denial must be attacked directly not by way of violation and collateral attack holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order holding that state court chancellors denial of leave to amend and the failure of plaintiffs to appeal the denial resulted in a final judgment on the issue and precluded relitigation of the matter in federal court holding that to declare a denial of due process we must find a denial of fundamental fairness holding that permit denial constituted a categorical taking