This is the tattoo parlor case. We blogged the Court of Appeals opinion here; go there for the facts.
The Supreme Court also reverses the trial court but substitutes its opinion for that of the Court of Appeals, which it vacates. Like that court, it follows Anderson – tattooing is free speech – though it explains in rather more detail why it doesn’t follow the courts that held otherwise.
But the court differs by saying that intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny, applies to the First Amendment, equal protection, and due process claims.
The court says that whether Mesa acted reasonably in not allowing Coleman to open a tattoo parlor at a particular place is fact question, not a matter for dismissal.