Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of the United States
December 4, 2001, Argued ; May 13, 2002, Decided
[**1731] [***677] [*429] JUSTICE O'CONNOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE THOMAS join.
] Los Angeles Municipal Code § 12.70(C) (1983), as amended, prohibits "the establishment or maintenance of more than one adult entertainment business in the same building, structure or portion thereof." [****10] Respondents, two adult establishments that each operated an adult bookstore and an adult video arcade in the same building, filed a suit under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994 ed., Supp. V), alleging that § 12.70(C) violates the First Amendment and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court granted summary judgment to respondents, finding that the city of Los Angeles' prohibition was a content-based regulation of speech that failed strict scrutiny. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but on different grounds. It held that, even if § 12.70(C) were a content-neutral regulation, the city failed to demonstrate that the [*430] prohibition was designed to serve a substantial government interest. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that the city failed to present evidence upon which it could reasonably rely to demonstrate a link between multiple-use adult establishments and negative secondary [***678] effects. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held the Los Angeles prohibition on such establishments invalid under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 89 L. Ed. 2d 29, 106 S. Ct. 925 (1986), and its precedents [****11] interpreting that case. 222 F.3d 719, 723-728 (2000). We reverse and remand. The city of Los Angeles may reasonably rely on a study it conducted some years before enacting the present version of § 12.70(C) to demonstrate that its ban on multiple-use adult establishments serves its interest in reducing crime.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
535 U.S. 425 *; 122 S. Ct. 1728 **; 152 L. Ed. 2d 670 ***; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3424 ****; 70 U.S.L.W. 4369; 30 Media L. Rep. 1769; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4067; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 5167; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 267
CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC., ET AL.
Prior History: [****1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
Disposition: 222 F.3d 719, reversed and remanded.
adult, ordinance, establishments, secondary effect, concentration, municipality, regulation, adult business, Appeals, arcades, zoning, video, content-based, adult bookstore, neighborhood, content neutral, suppressing, content based, disperse, attract, effects, zoning regulation, governmental interest, crime rate, correlation, theaters, plurality opinion, property value, viewing, courts
Constitutional Law, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom of Speech, Obscenity, Governments, Local Governments, Ordinances & Regulations, Duties & Powers