{"argument_date":"2001-12-04T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2001-12-04T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2001","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","paragraphs":["Michael Klekner argued for the city. He cited the 1977 study. He explained the 1,000-foot separation rule. He claimed no similar ordinances existed elsewhere. Chief Justice Rehnquist closed the argument. He stated the case was submitted.","questions_asked_by_justices","no_questions_asked_by_justices"],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 19-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-1"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 52, lines 7-9"}]}],"caption":"Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:32.719635Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"Los Angeles argues its zoning law prevents adult businesses from clustering. Alameda Books claims the rule violates its First Amendment rights.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 19-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-1"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2001-12-04T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2001","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/00-799.html","primary_docket":"00-799","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T17:24:50.646181Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["Los Angeles enacted a zoning ordinance in 1978. It requires adult businesses to stay 1,000 feet apart. The city argues this prevents negative secondary effects. Alameda Books argues the law restricts its speech. The city claims no similar ordinances existed elsewhere. Alameda Books contends the rule targets specific content."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 19-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-1"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 4, 2001."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["Los Angeles wants the ordinance upheld to prevent business clustering.","Alameda Books wants the ordinance struck down to protect its speech."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 19-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-1"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["Los Angeles argues the law serves a valid zoning purpose.","Alameda Books argues the law imposes an unconstitutional burden."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 19-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-1"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Does the 1,000-foot separation rule serve a legitimate state interest?","Does the ordinance target specific adult business content?"],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 52, lines 7-9"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["Cities use zoning to manage land use. This case tests the limits of that power. It affects how municipalities regulate adult businesses. It balances community interests against free speech rights. The outcome shapes future local zoning laws."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 19-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-1"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 52, lines 7-9"}]}],"slug":"2001-00-799-los-angeles-v-alameda-books-inc","term":"2001","title":"Can a city ban adult arcades and retail stores in one building?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 19-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-799.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-1"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}