RESPONDENT: City of Dallas
LOCATION: Cuyahoga County Courthouse
DOCKET NO.: 87-2012
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
CITATION: 493 US 215 (1990)
ARGUED: Oct 04, 1989
DECIDED: Jan 09, 1990
Analeslie Muncy - on behalf of the Respondent
John H. Weston - on behalf of the Petitioners
Facts of the case
Media for FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of DallasAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 04, 1989 in FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - January 09, 1990 in FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas
William H. Rehnquist:
The opinion of the Court in No. 87-2012, FW/PBS, Inc. doing business as Paris Adult Bookstore too versus the City of Dallas and companion cases will be announced by Justice O’Connor.
Sandra Day O'Connor:
These cases come to the Court on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
They require us to determine whether a licensing scheme and a comprehensive city ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses is a prior restraint that fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards as required by the case of Freedman versus Maryland, one of our precedents.
In a number of opinions, which may even exceed the number of justices, I am not sure, the court has resolved the case in essence as follows: With respect to those sexually oriented businesses engaging in First Amendment activity that the licensing scheme fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards, the scheme is unconstitutional because it fails to set a definite time limit within which the city must approve or deny a license, and because it fails to provide for expeditious judicial review if a license is denied.
We also hold that the petitioners have failed to prove that any petitioner has standing to challenge the civil disability provision of the ordinance.
Finally, we hold the city has sufficiently justified its requirement that adult motels renting in for less than 10 hours, and that the ordinance does not infringe the right to freedom of association.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals then is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Justice Brennan has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun have joined; Justice White has filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part with which Chief Justice Rehnquist joins; Justice Stevens has filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part; Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.