The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a bit more robust today, following U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan’s ruling for summary judgment on behalf of the plaintiffs in Coyote Publishing et. al. v. Heller.

For those who don’t know, this litigation — filed by Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada — was a lawsuit on behalf of several newspapers, seeking to void two state statues statutes that prohibited brothel advertising in counties where prostitution is illegal. And we’re proud to say that CityLife is one of those publications.

Until today’s ruling, NRS 201.430 said that it is unlawful to advertise brothels in any county, city or town where prostitution is prohibited, and NRS 201.440 provided for a six-month jail sentence and/or a $1,000 fine for a first offense, all the way up to a three-year jail term and up to a $1,000 fine for a third offense.

This presented quite a problem for the Shady Lady brothel in Nye County, which wanted to advertise in CityLife and other publications. Hence, the lawsuit.

And today, bowing to the superior arguments in Lichtenstein’s motion for summary judgment, Mahan agreed. Lichtenstein will draft the order invalidating the laws, which should go to the judge for his signature in about a week. Thereafter — notwithstanding any stays — brothels will be able to advertise in places like Clark and Washoe counties.

We’ve always thought those state laws were unconstitutional, but we’re glad to see that a federal judge agrees. We sincerely hope that the state or Clark County (both of whom are defendants in the case) agree as well, and don’t pursue an ultimately fruitless appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It would be a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Speaking of money, some will argue that the corporate masters of CityLife pursued this litigation only to make money from brothel ads. Personally, we don’t think there’s a gold mine there, but certainly, making money is what corporations do. (After all, we don’t accuse car dealers of advertising "simply because they want to sell cars," do we? Of course they want to sell cars. That’s what car dealers do!)

But for our part, the motive wasn’t financial. (We’re not going to get a rise raise, or avoid a cut in pay, because of this lawsuit.) The motive was philosophical: We honestly believe that telling a newspaper it cannot accept truthful advertising from a legal, licensed business is wrong. It’s prior restraint, and it does violence to the First Amendment’s guarantees.

Our hearty thanks to Lichtenstein and the ACLU of Nevada for their efforts in court. The First Amendment is stronger today because of them.