Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1990

FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas

493 U.S. 215 | 110 S. Ct. 596 | 107 L. Ed. 2d 603 | 1990 U.S. LEXIS 334

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a city may regulate sexually oriented businesses, but if its licensing process restrains First Amendment-protected enterprises, it must require timely decisions and allow prompt judicial review rather than permit administrative delay to silence speech.

Background

Dallas enacted an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses—including adult bookstores, video stores, theaters, cabarets, motels, escort agencies, nude model studios, and sexual encounter centers—to combat asserted secondary effects such as crime and urban blight. The ordinance combined zoning, licensing, inspection, and disqualification provisions. A business could not receive a license until the police chief approved it and city health, fire, and building officials approved the premises. It also imposed temporary licensing disabilities based on specified criminal convictions, a spouse’s convictions, or cohabitation with a person whose license had been denied or revoked.

Businesses involved in adult entertainment, sexually explicit publications and films, nude dancing, and short-term motel rentals brought three suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court upheld most of the ordinance but invalidated provisions granting excessive discretion to the police chief, a disqualification based merely on indictment, and several crimes insufficiently related to the ordinance’s goals. Dallas amended the ordinance accordingly. The Fifth Circuit largely affirmed, treating the ordinance as a content-neutral regulation of secondary effects and holding that the licensing system need not include the procedural safeguards required for censorship systems under Freedman v. Maryland.

The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. It invalidated the licensing scheme as applied to First Amendment-protected businesses because it lacked essential safeguards against delayed suppression of speech; held that the challengers lacked standing to contest certain disqualification provisions; and upheld the short-term motel regulation.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether businesses subject to the ordinance could bring a facial First Amendment challenge to Dallas’s licensing scheme.

Holding

Yes. The petitioners could facially challenge the licensing scheme because it regulated businesses engaged in First Amendment-protected expression and created a risk of delayed suppression of that expression.

Reasoning

Although facial challenges are generally disfavored, they are permitted in the First Amendment licensing context when a law gives officials unbridled discretion or creates an impermissible risk that protected speech will be suppressed. A licensing system that does not confine the time for official action carries the same constitutional vice as one that grants excessive substantive discretion.

The ordinance covered some enterprises not engaged in protected expression, such as escort agencies and sexual encounter centers. But it also substantially targeted adult bookstores, video stores, theaters, cabarets, and nude dancing establishments. Dallas conceded for purposes of the case that the sexually explicit materials and performances at issue were protected rather than obscene.

Dallas’s ordinary certificate-of-occupancy system did not eliminate the First Amendment concern. The challenged ordinance required additional inspections of sexually oriented businesses, including upon changes in ownership and annual permit renewals, so it imposed a more burdensome licensing process on businesses engaged in protected speech.

Issue #2

Whether Dallas’s licensing scheme provided constitutionally adequate procedural safeguards against prior restraint of protected expression.

Holding

No. As applied to businesses engaged in First Amendment activity, the scheme was unconstitutional because it did not ensure a timely licensing decision or prompt judicial review of a denial.

Reasoning

Prior restraints carry a heavy presumption against constitutional validity. A licensing system can suppress speech not only when an official has unbridled discretion over the decision, but also when the official may delay the decision indefinitely. Delay can silence an applicant just as effectively as an outright censorship decision.

The ordinance stated that the police chief should approve issuance of a license within 30 days. But issuance also depended on approvals from health, fire, and building officials, and the ordinance imposed no time limit for those inspections. Giving applicants the agencies’ telephone numbers did not require the agencies to inspect within any defined period. The system therefore allowed the city to postpone a license indefinitely.

Freedman v. Maryland requires safeguards for systems of prior restraint. The Court held that two protections were essential here: the licensor must decide within a specified, reasonable period while the status quo is maintained, and an applicant must have access to prompt judicial review of an erroneous denial. Dallas supplied neither an effective time limit on the necessary inspections nor a mechanism assuring prompt judicial review.

The Court did not require Freedman’s third safeguard—that the government itself initiate court proceedings and bear the burden of proof. Unlike the censor in Freedman, Dallas did not evaluate the content of particular expressive works; it assessed general business qualifications under a licensing system. Moreover, an applicant seeking to open or maintain an entire business has a strong incentive to challenge an adverse decision in court. The case was remanded for consideration of whether the unconstitutional licensing features were severable.

Issue #3

Whether the petitioners had standing to challenge the ordinance’s cohabitation and criminal-conviction disqualification provisions.

Holding

No. The petitioners failed to establish an actual, personal injury from those provisions, so the lower courts lacked jurisdiction to decide those challenges.

Reasoning

Federal courts must independently confirm standing, even when neither party contests it. The party invoking federal jurisdiction must affirmatively demonstrate facts showing an injury that is concrete, personal, and sufficiently imminent.

No petitioner showed that he or she lived with a person whose sexually oriented-business license had been denied or revoked within the preceding year. Thus, no petitioner established injury from the cohabitation disqualification provision.

The record also failed to show that any petitioner was currently disqualified by the criminal-conviction provision. One prospective applicant was not a party, and the underlying controlled-substances convictions affecting her spouse had been removed from the ordinance. Another petitioner alleged three obscenity misdemeanors but did not provide the dates of conviction or release necessary to show that the ordinance’s five-year disability period still applied.

Because the record did not establish standing, the Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on those provisions and directed dismissal of that portion of the action.

Issue #4

Whether Dallas had an adequate factual basis for treating motels that rented rooms for fewer than 10 hours as sexually oriented businesses.

Holding

Yes. The city’s reasonable legislative judgment, supported by the available Los Angeles study, adequately supported the short-term-rental rule.

Reasoning

The motel owners argued that the city lacked sufficient evidence that short-term motel rentals generated the crime and other secondary effects the ordinance sought to address. The Court accepted the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that the city could reasonably infer that rentals of fewer than 10 hours facilitate prostitution.

The legislative judgment, together with the Los Angeles study before the city council, supplied adequate support for including short-term motels within the licensing scheme. The Constitution did not demand more extensive empirical studies before Dallas could address the perceived secondary effects.

Issue #5

Whether the 10-hour minimum motel-rental rule impermissibly infringed freedom of intimate association.

Holding

No. Limiting rentals shorter than 10 hours did not meaningfully burden the protected personal relationships recognized by the Constitution.

Reasoning

The Court assumed, without deciding, that motel owners could assert the associational rights of their patrons. Even on that assumption, the claim failed on the merits.

The intimate relationships protected by freedom of association are personal bonds that play a critical role in the Nation’s traditions by cultivating and transmitting shared ideals and beliefs. The Court concluded that restricting motel rentals of fewer than 10 hours would have no discernible effect on relationships of that constitutionally protected kind.

Concurrences

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan agreed that the licensing scheme was invalid as applied to First Amendment-protected businesses and that the motel provisions survived challenge. He disagreed, however, with the Court’s conclusion that only two of Freedman’s three safeguards were required.

In his view, Riley v. National Federation of the Blind required Dallas not only to act promptly and provide prompt judicial review, but also to bear the burden of going to court and proving its case before it could deny a license. Riley involved professional fundraisers rather than direct review of particular expressive content, yet the Court still applied that full protection. That precedent made the distinctions drawn by Justice O’Connor unpersuasive.

Justice Brennan reasoned that the danger from a licensing restraint is the silencing of speech, regardless of whether an administrator purportedly denied the license on content-neutral grounds. Errors and abuse are possible, so procedural burdens should be placed on the government rather than on the speaker whenever the choice is between protecting expression and risking silence.

He also regarded the Court’s extended standing discussion as unnecessary. Because the Court had already invalidated the licensing scheme as applied to First Amendment-protected businesses, it need not separately resolve the merits or standing of an additional First Amendment challenge to particular licensing disqualifications.

Dissents

Justice White

Reasoning

Justice White joined the Court’s treatment of the background, standing, and motel issues, but rejected its application of Freedman to the Dallas licensing scheme. He would have affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s judgment upholding the ordinance.

In his view, the ordinance was a content-neutral regulation of the nonexpressive aspects and secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses, like the zoning regulations upheld in Young v. American Mini Theatres and Renton v. Playtime Theatres. It did not authorize officials to judge the content or suitability of particular books, films, or performances.

The Fifth Circuit had already found that the ordinance supplied objective licensing criteria and did not confer unbridled substantive discretion. Justice White saw no basis for importing procedural rules developed for direct censorship of individual films into a neutral business-licensing regime.

He also viewed the feared delay as speculative. The ordinance called for action within 30 days, there was no evidence that inspections or applications had actually been delayed, and regulated businesses had every incentive to pursue administrative and judicial remedies. A facial invalidation based on hypothetical delay was therefore unwarranted.

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens joined the Court’s conclusions on the licensing and motel provisions but disagreed with its order dismissing the challenges to the cohabitation and criminal-disability provisions for lack of standing. Given the breadth of those provisions, the affidavits in the record, and the District Court’s understanding of the facts, he would have remanded for an evidentiary hearing rather than ordered dismissal.

He also rejected Justice Scalia’s proposed use of Ginzburg v. United States to remove First Amendment protection from businesses that truthfully advertise sexually explicit material. In Justice Stevens’s view, Ginzburg concerned evidence relevant to whether particular material was obscene; it did not create an unprotected category of speech-related businesses. Truthful descriptions warning the public about an establishment’s adult character should be encouraged rather than punished.

Justice Scalia

Reasoning

Justice Scalia agreed with the Court’s treatment of the preliminary, standing, and motel questions but would have upheld the ordinance in full. He reasoned that Dallas could constitutionally prohibit the commercial activity at which the ordinance was directed and therefore could also require those businesses to obtain licenses without Freedman-style procedural safeguards.

Relying on Ginzburg, he argued that a business intentionally specializing in and promoting highly explicit sexual material may be treated as engaged in unprotected pandering, even if each individual book, film, or performance would not independently meet the Miller test for obscenity. Communities, in his view, need not tolerate commercial enterprises that hold themselves out as devoted to sexual stimulation merely because their individual products are not obscene.

Justice Scalia read the ordinance narrowly. It applied to establishments that regularly or principally offered live nudity or explicit sexual activity, and its terms could reasonably be understood to require that the business intentionally market itself as offering such material. This focus on a business’s concentrated, promotional activity distinguished the ordinance from a ban on individual works of expression.

Any hypothetical application to a protected business did not justify facial invalidation. The ordinance’s plainly legitimate reach, as Justice Scalia understood it, dwarfed any conceivable unconstitutional applications, which could instead be addressed case by case.