City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.
2000 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Erie v. Pap's A. M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding nude dancing as free speech. The court held that an ordinance banning public nudity did not violate the operator of a totally nude entertainment establishment's constitutional right to free speech.[1]
Quick Facts Erie v. Pap's A. M., Argued November 10, 1999 Decided March 29, 2000 ...
Erie v. Pap's A. M. | |
---|---|
Argued November 10, 1999 Decided March 29, 2000 | |
Full case name | City of Erie, et al. v. Pap's A. M., tdba "Kandyland" |
Citations | 529 U.S. 277 (more) 120 S. Ct. 1382; 146 L. Ed. 2d 265 |
Case history | |
Prior | 553 Pa. 348, 719 A.2d 273. The state supreme court determined that petitioner City's ordinance banning public nudity violated respondent operator of totally nude dancing establishment's right to freedom of expression under U.S. Const. amend. I. |
Holding | |
The ordinance was content-neutral because it regulated conduct alone, did not target nudity that contained an erotic message, and petitioner's interest in preventing harmful secondary effects associated with adult entertainment establishments was not related to the suppression of the exotic message conveyed by nude dancing. The O'Brien test for evaluating restrictions on symbolic speech therefore applied, and was successfully met. Reversed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, Breyer, |
Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
Concur/dissent | Souter |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. Amend. I |
Close