October Term 2001 · Docket 00-799
Can a city ban adult arcades and retail stores in one building?
Los Angeles argues its zoning law prevents adult businesses from clustering. Alameda Books claims the rule violates its First Amendment rights.
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
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
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 7-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 4, 2001.
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
Los Angeles wants the ordinance upheld to prevent business clustering.
Alameda Books wants the ordinance struck down to protect its speech.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
What each side says
Los Angeles argues the law serves a valid zoning purpose.
Alameda Books argues the law imposes an unconstitutional burden.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
What the justices asked
Does the 1,000-foot separation rule serve a legitimate state interest?
Does the ordinance target specific adult business content?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 7-9
Why it matters
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
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 52, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 7-9
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 25, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
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.