Skip to main content

Nixon Peabody LLP

  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • About
Trending Topics
    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    Practices

    View All

    • Affordable Housing
    • Community Development Finance
    • Corporate & Finance
    • Cybersecurity & Privacy
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Environmental
    • Franchising & Distribution
    • Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
    • Healthcare
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Services
    • Labor, Employment, and Benefits
    • Litigation
    • Private Wealth & Advisory
    • Project Finance
    • Public Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Regulatory & Government Relations
    Industries

    View All

    • Aviation
    • Cannabis
    • Consumer
    • Energy
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Higher Education
    • Infrastructure
    • Manufacturing
    • Nonprofit Organizations
    • Real Estate
    • Sports & Stadiums
    • Technology
    Value-Added Services

    View All

    • Alternative Fee Arrangements

      Developing innovative pricing structures and alternative fee agreement models that deliver additional value for our clients.

    • Continuing Education

      Advancing professional knowledge and offering credits for attorneys, staff and other professionals.

    • Crisis Advisory

      Helping clients respond correctly when a crisis occurs.

    • DEI Strategic Services

      Providing our clients with legal, strategic, and practical advice to make transformational changes in their organizations.

    • eDiscovery

      Leveraging law and technology to deliver sound solutions.

    • Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)

      We help clients create positive return on investments in people, products, and the planet.

    • Global Services

      Delivering seamless service through partnerships across the globe.

    • Innovation

      Leveraging leading-edge technology to guide change and create seamless, collaborative experiences for clients and attorneys.

    • IPED

      Industry-leading conferences focused on affordable housing, tax credits, and more.

    • Legal Project Management

      Providing actionable information to support strategic decision-making.

    • Legally Green

      Teaming with clients to advance sustainable projects, mitigate the effects of climate change, and protect our planet.

    • Nixon Peabody Trust Company

      Offering a range of investment management and fiduciary services.

    • NP Capital Connector

      Bringing together companies and investors for tomorrow’s new deals.

    • NP Second Opinion

      Offering fresh insights on cases that are delayed, over budget, or off-target from the desired resolution.

    • NP Trial

      Courtroom-ready lawyers who can resolve disputes early on clients’ terms or prevail at trial before a judge or jury.

    • Social Impact

      Creating positive impact in our communities through increasing equity, access, and opportunity.

    • Women in Dealmaking

      We provide strategic counsel on complex corporate transactions and unite dynamic women in the dealmaking arena.

    1. Home
    2. Insights
    3. Alerts
    4. APA challenges to the PPP loan program thwarted by courts and Congress; but a narrow path remains for borrowers

      Alerts

    Alert / Coronavirus Stimulus & Relief Alert

    APA challenges to the PPP loan program thwarted by courts and Congress; but a narrow path remains for borrowers

    March 11, 2021

    LinkedInX (Twitter)EmailCopy URL

    By Morgan Nighan, Carolyn Nussbaum and Eric Ferrante

    The Second Circuit upholds “prurience restrictions” on PPP eligibility—What does this mean for applicants and borrowers?

    DOWNLOAD

    PDF: APA challenges to the PPP loan program

    Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld loan eligibility restrictions imposed by the U.S. Small Business Administration (the SBA) on certain borrowers under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The SBA’s regulation precludes businesses in certain industries from participating in PPP. The Second Circuit rejected claims that such restrictions run afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA) and the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    Borrowers outside of the Second Circuit may still be able to challenge the application of the SBA’s eligibility restrictions to loans taken prior to August 8, 2020. However, borrowers who took loans under the PPP program pursuant to the Economic Aid Act will have a harder time challenging the application of this regulation because Congress expressly incorporated it into the law.

    Overview

    Pharaohs GC, Inc. (Pharaohs), a “gentleman’s club” that features nude dancing, was forced to close in response to the COVID-19 pandemic following New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s order, in March 2020, that required the closure of most “non-essential” businesses in the state. As the pandemic raged across the country, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act), creating the PPP, and authorizing the SBA to guarantee loans to small businesses affected by the pandemic.[1] Pursuant to the CARES Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9012, the SBA Administrator promulgated several interim final rules to administer the PPP program. The first of these rules imported the restrictions on participation in section 7(a) loans—the SBA’s primary program for providing financial assistance to small businesses—into the eligibility requirements for PPP loans.[2] As a result, businesses that “[p]resent live performances of a prurient sexual nature” (the “prurience restriction”), like Pharaohs, were precluded from accessing PPP loans.[3]

    When Pharaohs’ lender informed it that its PPP loan application would be rejected because of the “prurience restriction,” Pharaohs sued the SBA in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, seeking a preliminary injunction restraining the SBA from imposing the “prurience restriction” on PPP loan applicants. Pharaohs made two distinct arguments in seeking a preliminary injunction against the SBA: (1) the regulatory “prurience restriction” is unlawful under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), because it is an inconsistent limitation with the statutory CARES Act’s express direction that “any business concern…shall be eligible” for a PPP loan; and (2) the restriction is an impermissible burden on nude dancing, a protected form of expression. The District Court denied Pharaohs’ request for injunctive relief, concluding that Pharaohs had failed to establish that either of its arguments had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. On March 4, 2021, the Second Circuit affirmed.

    Discussion and implications

    The Second Circuit’s APA analysis

    The Second Circuit first rejected Pharaohs’ argument that the regulatory “prurience restriction” violates the APA because it is inconsistent with the CARES Act’s express statutory eligibility requirements. In doing so, the court found that the SBA was authorized to adopt eligibility restrictions, pointing to the CARES Act’s language that “the [SBA] may guarantee [PPP] loans under the same terms, conditions, and processes” as a section 7(a) loan “except as otherwise provided.”[4] This language, the court explained, “unambiguously gives the Administrator discretion to adopt the longstanding [restrictions on eligibility] of the 7(a) program.”[5] Thus, the court concluded that when the CARES Act language is read in the broader context of the existing section 7(a) loan program—which Congress was presumed to know when drafting legislation—Pharaohs’ interpretation that “any business concern” must mean “every business concern” is untenable.[6]

    The Second Circuit further explained that Pharaohs’ interpretation could not be accepted because the CARES Act specifically lifts SBA regulations requiring collateral and personal guarantees by waiving the usual section 7(a) requirement that borrowers not be able to obtain credit elsewhere.[7] The court observed that, if the SBA did not have the authority to exclude businesses from the PPP, these provisions of the CARES Act would be “superfluous.” Likewise, while nonprofits are ineligible for section 7(a) loans, the CARES Act expressly authorized charitable entities to participate in the PPP.[8] Congress did not, however, express a similar intention with respect to other limitations on participation in the section 7(a) program, “strongly suggest[ing] that Congress deliberately chose not to change the [SBA’s] statutory discretion to exclude businesses, other than those it expressly identified in the CARES Act.”[9]

    In short, the Second Circuit concluded that the CARES Act language providing that “any business” with less than 500 employees is eligible for a PPP loan “must be understood as simply raising the employee threshold defining eligibility for small business relief to 500 and including a few other kinds of employers in the [PPP] Program, like nonprofit organizations and sole proprietors.”[10] Thus, under the Second Circuit’s analysis, the CARES Act “does not require the [SBA] to make eligible all businesses below that threshold”; instead, the SBA may impose all of the same eligibility requirements as apply to the traditional section 7(a) program except those expressly eliminated for PPP purposes in the CARES Act.[11]

    The Second Circuit’s Pharaoh decision creates a conflict with the Sixth Circuit

    The Second Circuit’s decision in this regard runs counter to an earlier decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC v. Small Business Administration, 960 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2020). In that case, decided in May 2020, the Sixth Circuit denied a stay of enforcement of a preliminary injunction enjoining the SBA from applying the “prurience restriction” to a Michigan-based gentleman’s club’s PPP loan application. There, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the SBA could not establish a likelihood of success on appeal because “Congress made clear that the SBA’s longstanding ineligibility rules are inapplicable given the current circumstances” when it specified that “any business concern” was eligible for a PPP loan.[12] The Sixth Circuit further concluded that the CARES Act language specifying that the SBA “may guarantee covered loans under the same terms, conditions, and processes” as traditional section 7(a) loans “likely constitutes a catch-all governing procedure otherwise unaffected by the mandate of the CARES Act and the PPP and does not detract from the broad grant of eligibility.”[13]

    The Second Circuit distinguished DV Diamond Club on a procedural point without addressing the substance of the Sixth Circuit’s decision. Because the District Court had granted a preliminary injunction, the SBA asked the Sixth Circuit to stay the injunction until the merits of its appeal were decided, it was the SBA that bore the burden in DV Diamond Club to show its entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief.[14] In contrast, Pharaohs had the burden to show it was entitled to the injunctive relief it was seeking.[15]

    Although the Pharaohs and DV Diamond Club could be interpreted to create a split between the Circuits, it is one that is likely to impact only a small handful of borrowers who received PPP loans prior to August 8, 2020. Those borrowers may still challenge the SBA’s application of its ineligibility rule if they receive a denial of loan forgiveness on that basis. However, as we discussed in a prior alert, Congress likely mooted other similar challenges to the SBA’s eligibility restrictions as imposed on PPP borrowers who have received loans under the most recent round of PPP funding under the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (the Economic Aid Act) by expressly incorporating the pre-existing regulations containing them into the Economic Aid Act’s statutory language.

    The Second Circuit’s constitutional analysis

    While the Second Circuit’s analysis of Pharaohs’ constitutional arguments is less likely to apply to a large swath of otherwise ineligible PPP borrowers, it is interesting nonetheless.

    First, the court rejected Pharaohs’ argument that the “prurience restriction” impermissibly regulates protected speech. In reaching this conclusion, the court explained that the restriction is not subject to strict scrutiny—and instead only must satisfy the more lesser scrutiny of rational-basis review—because nude dancing “involves ‘only the barest minimum of protected expression,”[16] and because the restriction represented a permissible funding condition that set the scope of a government subsidy as opposed to a funding condition that amounts to a backdoor regulation of speech.[17] In other words, the “prurience restriction” represents, according to the Second Circuit, a permissible exercise of Congress’s authority to “specify the activities [it] wants to subsidize.”[18] Thus, Pharaohs was required to demonstrate that the justifications that “might support” the regulation lacked any rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. Pharaohs was unable to meet this requirement.

    Second, the court rejected Pharaohs’ argument that the “prurience restriction” represented viewpoint-based discrimination because “prurience” is not a viewpoint. Instead, the court explained, “prurience” is a content-based restriction that can be restricted, under the rational-basis standard, so long as the restriction has a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.[19]

    Conclusion

    The Second Circuit’s decision in Pharaohs means that potential PPP borrowers in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont that are restricted from eligibility for section 7(a) loans are likely out of luck and will continue to be ineligible for PPP loans. Those restrictions include foreign businesses, “[p]yramid sale distribution plans,” “[s]peculative businesses (such as oil wildcatting),” businesses with an associate indicted for a felony or crime of moral turpitude, “[b]usinesses primarily engaged in political or lobbying activities,” and, as discussed herein, businesses that “[p]resent live performances of a prurient sexual nature.”[20] However, as noted above, the Pharaohs decision is unlikely to impact any new PPP borrowers under the Economic Aid Act because Congress made sure to clear up any confusion or basis to argue ambiguity by expressly declaring in the statute that those entities covered by the 13 C.F.R. § 120.110 restrictions are also ineligible for the latest round of PPP funding. A narrow path remains for borrowers outside of the Second Circuit to challenge the application of the eligibility restriction for PPP loans taken prior to August 8, 2020.


    1. Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 1102, 134 Stat. 281, 286-94 (2020) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)).
      [Back to reference]
    2. 85 Fed. Reg. at 20,812 (incorporating 13 C.F.R. § 120.110 restrictions on eligibility for certain “types of businesses”).
      [Back to reference]
    3. 13 C.F.R. § 120.110.
      [Back to reference]
    4. Pharaohs GC, Inc. v. Small Business Administration, No. 20-2170-cv, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6297, at *8 (2d Cir. Mar. 4, 2021) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(36)(B)).
      [Back to reference]
    5. Pharaohs, at *9-10.
      [Back to reference]
    6. Id. at *10 (emphasis added).
      [Back to reference]
    7. Id. at *11.
      [Back to reference]
    8. Id. at *11-12.
      [Back to reference]
    9. Id. at *12.
      [Back to reference]
    10. Id. at *12-13.
      [Back to reference]
    11. Id. at *13 (emphasis in original).
      [Back to reference]
    12. Id. at 746-47.
      [Back to reference]
    13. Id. at 747.
      [Back to reference]
    14. Pharaohs, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6297 at *13 n.4.
      [Back to reference]
    15. Id.
      [Back to reference]
    16. Id. at *14-15 (quoting Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 932 (1975)).
      [Back to reference]
    17. Id.
      [Back to reference]
    18. Id.
      [Back to reference]
    19. Id. at *19-21.
      [Back to reference]
    20. 13 C.F.R. § 120.110.
      [Back to reference]

    Practices

    Corporate & FinanceFinancial Restructuring & BankruptcyFranchising & DistributionMergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Transactions Private Equity & Investment FundsTaxFinancial Institution InvestigationsHealthcareLabor, Employment & BenefitsCalifornia Labor & EmploymentLitigationClass Actions & Aggregate LitigationAntitrust

    Industries

    Food, Beverage & AgribusinessBanking & FinanceNonprofit OrganizationsHealthcare

    Insights And Happenings

    • Alert

      PPP and EIDL statute of limitations for fraud extended to 10 years

      Aug 10, 2022
    • Press Release

      Nixon Peabody selects Rick Pedone to lead the firm’s Financial Restructuring & Bankruptcy team

      March 24, 2022
    • Press Release

      Nixon Peabody names Todd Tidgewell as leader of the firm’s Corporate practice

      June 14, 2021
    The foregoing has been prepared for the general information of clients and friends of the firm. It is not meant to provide legal advice with respect to any specific matter and should not be acted upon without professional counsel. If you have any questions or require any further information regarding these or other related matters, please contact your regular Nixon Peabody LLP representative. This material may be considered advertising under certain rules of professional conduct.

    Subscribe to stay informed of the latest legal news, alerts, and business trends.Subscribe

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    • Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Statement of Client Rights
    • Purchase Order Terms & Conditions
    • Nixon Peabody International LLC
    • PAL
    © 2025 Nixon Peabody. All rights reserved