October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1680
Does a city license denial for adult business violations violate free speech rights?
A business claims its license denial for code violations infringes free speech. The city argues the law meets constitutional standards.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The business claims the licensing scheme risks censorship by delay.
The city asserts the ordinance meets procedural standards for speech regulation.
The business cites four principles designed to prevent censorship delays.
The city argues the lower court judgment should stand.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 5-5
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether a city can deny an adult business license based on code violations without violating free speech protections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 3-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
The business wants the license denial overturned to protect its speech rights.
The city wants the denial upheld to enforce local safety codes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 3-17
What each side says
The business argues the denial scheme creates dangerous censorship delays.
The city argues prompt judicial review satisfies First Amendment standards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 3-17
What the justices asked
Does the ordinance provide adequate access to judicial review?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 5-5
Why it matters
This dispute defines how cities regulate adult businesses without suppressing speech. It balances public safety against constitutional free expression rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 3-17
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-5 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 5-5
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 13-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 13-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 3-17
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.