We have interpreted the substantial government interest standard as requiring not only a showing of the
importance of the interest, but also a demonstration that the challenged statute, at least to some degree, is
effective in serving that interest.
This approach arguably conflicts with
City of Renton, which mandates only that a statute be “
designed to serve a substantial government interest” and does not require evidence of effectiveness.
City of Renton, 475 U.S. at 47, 106 S.Ct. 925 (emphasis added).
City of Renton does require proof of the
existence of the secondary effects that the challenged ordinance seeks to eliminate but does not consider the question of proof of effectiveness in combating them.
Id. at 50–52, 106 S.Ct. 925. This court's caselaw also may be in tension with other Supreme Court time, place, and manner cases that require evidence of effectiveness and necessity only as a part of the narrow tailoring prong of the time, place, and manner test.
See, e.g., Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484–87, 108 S.Ct. 2495. Nonetheless,
J&B Entertainment is binding on us unless overruled en banc.