This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Mr. Gross, the case concerns whether administrative officials can shut down an entire adult business rather than just a single work of art.
According to Mr. Gross, prompt judicial review is argued to be important because an erroneous deprivation of speech rights would cause irreparable injury.
Background and question before the Court
This is the only adult business that has ever existed in the City of Littleton.
The law at issue was enacted in 1993, has been amended many times, and the state nuisance action was filed in January 2000, with a district‑court order issued in September 2001 and reversed in February 2003.
According to Justice, qUESTION: It didn’t say it in — it said prompt.
What each side argues
CITY OF LITTLETON, COLORADO
According to Mr. Gross, administrative officials will have the power to shut down an entire business, not simply a single work of art.
According to Mr. Gross, prompt judicial review is essential because an erroneous deprivation of speech rights would cause irreparable injury.
What happened at oral argument
Justice asked a question about the prompt nature of the issue.
Mr. Gross argued that administrative officials have the power to shut down an entire business and that prompt judicial review is needed to prevent irreparable injury to speech rights.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Mr. Gross, the case underscores the importance of prompt judicial review to protect speech rights from erroneous deprivation that could cause irreparable injury.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- c6d305bb5b85d1222f52-r1-088475de197b83aa.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.