City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.
Headline: Ruling lets Los Angeles use its 1977 study to enforce a ban on more than one adult entertainment business in the same building, reversing lower courts and restoring local zoning enforcement power.
Holding: The Court ruled that Los Angeles may rely on its 1977 study to justify a zoning ban on more than one adult entertainment business in the same building, reversing summary judgment for the businesses.
- Lets cities rely on local studies to justify zoning limits on adult businesses.
- May force combined adult bookstores and arcades to separate or close in affected cities.
- Reverses lower-court block on enforcement at summary judgment stage.
Summary
Background
The dispute is between the city of Los Angeles and two adult businesses that each operated a bookstore and video arcade in the same commercial space. Los Angeles has a zoning rule that forbids more than one adult entertainment business in the same building. The businesses sued, and lower courts blocked enforcement after finding the city lacked adequate evidence tying the combined businesses to neighborhood harms.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court addressed whether the city could reasonably rely on its own 1977 study to justify the ordinance under the Court’s earlier approach to so-called "secondary effects" (crime and neighborhood decline that flow from concentrations of adult businesses). The Court held that reducing crime is a substantial government interest and that Los Angeles may rely on its study to support the inference that concentrating adult operations draws crowds that can increase crime. The Court therefore reversed the lower-court summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, applying intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny.
Real world impact
Practically, the ruling allows Los Angeles to press enforcement of its ban at trial and lets other cities point to local studies when defending similar dispersal rules. The decision is not a final ruling on the ordinance’s ultimate constitutionality; it simply means the city survives the businesses’ early challenge and can try to prove its case in the lower courts.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment but warned about treating such rules as "content neutral." Justice Scalia concurred separately. Justice Souter dissented, arguing the 1977 study does not support breaking up books-and-arcade businesses and that the breakup rule risks covert content-based regulation.
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?