What happens when constitutional challenges are inadequately briefed on appeal? SLC v. Kidd Explained

In SLC v. Kidd, the Utah Supreme Court demonstrated the critical importance of adequate briefing and preservation in constitutional challenges. The case arose when Karlie Kidd, an escort licensed in Midvale, was cited for operating without a license in Salt Lake City.

Background and Facts: Kidd possessed a valid escort license from Midvale City but lacked the required Salt Lake City license when she met an undercover officer at the Grand America Hotel. Utah Code section 10-8-41.5 requires escorts to obtain licenses in each municipality where they work if that municipality requires licensing. Kidd challenged this regulatory framework, arguing it violated her First Amendment and Equal Protection rights by imposing duplicative licensing requirements.

Key Legal Issues: The court addressed two constitutional challenges: whether the licensing requirement violated Kidd’s First Amendment commercial speech rights and whether it denied her equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, both claims faced significant procedural hurdles.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Utah Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the merits of either constitutional claim. For the First Amendment challenge, the court found Kidd’s briefing inadequately developed because she failed to identify the specific protected speech at issue or explain how the licensing requirement burdened that speech. The court criticized her “undifferentiated citation to various First Amendment frameworks” without connecting them to her case facts. Regarding equal protection, the court ruled the claim was not properly preserved below, as Kidd merely mentioned the phrase without citing relevant authority or applying equal protection principles to her facts.

Practice Implications: This decision reinforces fundamental appellate practice principles. Constitutional challenges require specific identification of protected rights and clear explanation of how government action burdens those rights. Practitioners must choose appropriate constitutional frameworks rather than citing multiple incompatible theories. The court emphasized that preservation requires more than “mere mention” of constitutional principles—parties must cite relevant authority and apply legal standards to case facts. The decision also highlights the importance of distinguishing between facial and as-applied constitutional challenges, as this affects both the analytical framework and available remedies.