that states retain inherent powers to regulate nude entertainment where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises. See, e.g., BZAPS, Inc. v. City of Mankato, 268 F.3d 603, 605-08 (8th Cir. 2001) (finding concern about combination of alcohol and adult entertainment is not irrational and the city was entitled, under its police power, to prohibit the sale of alcohol in locations featuring adult entertainment), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 904, 122 S.Ct. 2356, 153 L.Ed.2d 179 (2002); Sammy’s of Mobile, Ltd. v. City of Mobile, 140 F.3d 993, 999 (11th Cir.1998) (finding prohibition on nude dancing where liquor is sold restricts only the place or manner of nude dancing without regulating any particular message); El Marocco Club, Inc. v. Richardson, 746 A.2d 1228, 1234-39 (R.I. 2000) (<HOLDING>). The few state courts, including the Supreme
holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation holding prohibition on nude dancing in places where alcohol is served was a contentneutral regulation that constitutionally restricted time manner and places where nudity could occur holding that the reviewing court correctly places the burden of proof on the plaintiff seeking amendment