City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.
Headline: Public nudity ban upheld as content-neutral, reversing the state court and allowing Erie to enforce minimal costume rules for nude dancing establishments while related legal issues continue.
Holding: The Court held that Erie's public-nudity ordinance is a content-neutral regulation that meets the O'Brien test, reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and allowed enforcement of the minimal costume requirement for dancers.
- Allows cities to enforce public-nudity bans tied to combating secondary effects.
- Dancers may be required to wear pasties and a G-string.
- Leaves room for further legal challenges over evidence and scope.
Summary
Background
The City of Erie passed an ordinance in 1994 making it a crime to appear nude in public. A local club known as Kandyland, run by Pap’s A.M., featured fully nude dancing; Pap’s sued two days after the law took effect to stop enforcement. The trial court struck the ordinance, the Commonwealth Court reversed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court then invalidated the nudity sections as violating free-expression rights, noting Barnes v. Glen Theatre.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the law targeted the erotic message or regulated public nudity as conduct. The Court concluded that although nude dancing can be expressive, the ordinance regulates nudity generally and is content-neutral. It applied the four-factor O'Brien test (government power, substantial interest, interest unrelated to suppressing expression, and a restriction no greater than necessary), found Erie’s health, safety, and "secondary effects" rationale sufficient, and described the costume rule as de minimis.
Real world impact
The ruling lets Erie and similar cities enforce public-nudity bans that aim to curb crime and neighborhood harms tied to adult clubs, so long as the rules meet O’Brien’s factors and rely reasonably on evidence or past cases like Renton and Barnes. Dancers may now be required to wear pasties and a G-string. The Court reversed the state high court and remanded for any remaining issues, so further challenges remain possible.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Scalia would have dismissed the case as moot because Kandyland closed, and he would not reach the merits; he emphasized Pap’s sworn disavowals. Justice Souter agreed with the test but urged remand for fuller factual development about secondary effects. Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissented strongly, warning the decision lets governments suppress protected erotic expression beyond traditional zoning limits.
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?