You know, we were just talking to the delightful Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto the other day, and we had no idea she was even contemplating an appeal in that brothel advertising case that CityLife won the other day. (Oh, sure, our crack attorney — Allen Lichtenstein of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada — had a little something to do with the victory, too. But we have to say, we signed one hell of an affidavit!)

(You remember the case, Coyote Publishing et. al. v. Heller: CityLife and other plaintiffs sued the state over a law that says advertising for legal brothels is banned in counties in Nevada where prostitution is illegal. So even though the Shady Lady Ranch is a legal, licensed and regulated business in Nye County, it was illegal for CityLife to publish ads from the company. Since the ruling was handed down in July, the Shady Lady has been running ads in the paper.)

But today, we got a news release from Cortez Masto’s office, saying she’s going to appeal U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan’s ruling, which struck down the laws for a variety of reasons, all of them good.

But Cortez Masto sees it differently: "The people of this state have placed restrictions on brothel advertising for 40 years," she said in the news release. "In reviewing the decision of the federal court, I have concerns about the legal standard used by the judge in determining that our state’s longstanding limitations on brothel advertising were constitutionally invalid. To protect the will of Nevadans to place reasonable restrictions on brothel advertising, my office will appeal this decision. This will allow our state to clarify the standard for reviewing our existing law and could help the Legislature should a new law be crafted."

That’s it? The law has been on the books for 40 years and it’s the will of the people? (Technically, we should note, it was the will of the people 40 years ago; these things change, you know.) Plus, many laws have been on the books for a long time; that doesn’t make them valid. A review of those laws may have been long in coming, but to our way of thinking (again, we’re a plaintiff, so we’re biased) it packs no less a constitutional punch because it took 40 years to get to court.

The fact is, the anti-brothel advertising law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as other court rulings on similar subjects. Mahan saw that, and we’re confident the Ninth Circuit will, too.

But you know what? We’re not at all upset. Because Cortez Masto is right about one thing: We all need the guidance of the Ninth Circuit, just in case the moralists in the Legislature try to craft an even stupider law the next time around. So, on to San Francisco, and to justice!