California v. LaRue
Headline: Court upholds California’s rule letting state liquor agency ban explicit sexual performances in bars and nightclubs, allowing license limits that restrict certain adult entertainment where alcohol is served.
Holding: The Court reversed the District Court and held that California’s liquor-licensing rules banning certain explicit sexual performances in licensed bars and nightclubs do not facially violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Allows state liquor agency to bar explicit sexual performances in licensed bars and nightclubs.
- Authorizes license suspensions or revocations for covered entertainment violations.
- Does not preclude later as-applied First Amendment challenges.
Summary
Background
The dispute involved California's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and holders of liquor licenses and entertainers working in bars and nightclubs. In 1970 the Department adopted rules that barred certain sexual acts, touching, and exposure of genitals or pubic hair in licensed premises and prohibited films showing the same. Licensees and dancers sued in federal court arguing the rules violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and a three-judge District Court struck down substantial parts of the regulations after reviewing testimony about incidents tied to erotic performances.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court addressed whether the liquor-licensing rules, considered on their face, unlawfully restricted expression. The Court explained that states have a special, strengthened authority over the sale and distribution of alcohol under the Twenty-first Amendment. Given the agency’s factual hearings about problems connected with lewd performances in licensed drinking establishments, the Court found the Department's prophylactic choice of a broad rule was not irrational. The Court concluded the regulations did not facially violate the Federal Constitution and reversed the District Court’s injunction.
Real world impact
The decision allows California’s licensing agency to enforce restrictions on the kinds of live and filmed sexual entertainment that may occur in places that serve drinks. Bars, nightclubs, entertainers, and license applicants are directly affected because licenses can be denied, suspended, or revoked for covered performances. The ruling is a facial decision; specific future enforcement actions could still be challenged in court on an as-applied basis.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices disagreed. Justice Stewart concurred emphasizing state power under the Twenty-first Amendment. Justices Marshall, Brennan, and Douglas dissented, arguing the rules are overbroad, burden protected speech, or that the case was premature for a facial ruling.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?