Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.
Headline: Court upholds Indiana rule requiring pasties and G-strings for nude dancers, allowing states to limit public nudity and making it harder for clubs to offer completely nude performances to paying adults.
Holding: The Court held that Indiana’s requirement that adult-club dancers wear pasties and G-strings does not violate the First Amendment and may be enforced against nude dancing in those establishments.
- Allows states to enforce public nudity rules requiring minimal coverings in adult clubs.
- Makes fully nude performances harder for dancers and club owners to offer legally.
- Affirms state authority to regulate morality and public order in adult entertainment.
Summary
Background
Two South Bend, Indiana adult businesses and several dancers challenged an Indiana law that bans public nudity and requires performers to wear at least pasties and G-strings. One club, the Kitty Kat Lounge, wanted to present totally nude go-go dancing; the Glen Theatre offered live nude and seminude performances in coin-operated booths. Dancers work on commission and say they would earn more if fully nude. The district court first blocked enforcement, the Seventh Circuit (en banc) later held the dancing was protected expression and struck down the law as applied, and the State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court agreed that the kind of nude dancing at issue is marginally expressive but applied the four-part O'Brien test for conduct with an expressive element. The Court found the public indecency statute is within the State's power, furthers substantial interests in order and morality, is not aimed at suppressing the erotic message, and restricts expression no more than necessary by requiring only pasties and G-strings. Because the law targets nudity generally rather than speech, the Court concluded it may be enforced against these performances.
Real world impact
The ruling lets Indiana and similar states enforce public nudity bans in adult clubs while still allowing non-nude erotic entertainment. Dancers and club owners who want fully nude shows face legal limits and possible prosecution. The decision rests on differing rationales among Justices and is not unanimous, so future cases could refine or limit its scope.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices wrote separately: one concurrence says the law is a general conduct rule not covered by the First Amendment; another concurrence relies on preventing secondary effects like prostitution and crime. A strong dissent argued nude dancing is protected expression and the statute improperly targets that speech.
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?