Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 406

529US1

Unit: $U42

[10-11-01 11:58:08] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 277 (2000)

331

Stevens, J., dissenting

genitals” (and certain other regions of the body) “with less
than a fully opaque covering.” 501 U. S., at 569, n. 2. The
Erie ordinance duplicates that deﬁnition in all material re-
spects, but adds the following to its deﬁnition of “[n]udity”:

“ ‘[T]he exposure of any device, costume, or covering
which gives the appearance of or simulates the genitals,
pubic hair, natal cleft, perineum anal region or pubic
hair region; or the exposure of any device worn as a
cover over the nipples and/or areola of the female
breast, which device simulates and gives the realistic
appearance of nipples and/or areola.’ ” Ante, at 283–
284, n. (emphasis added).

Can it be doubted that this out-of-the-ordinary deﬁnition of
“nudity” is aimed directly at the dancers in establishments
such as Kandyland? Who else is likely to don such gar-
ments? 17 We should not stretch to embrace fanciful ex-
planations when the most natural reading of the ordinance
unmistakably identiﬁes its intended target.

It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Erie ordi-
nance was a response to a more speciﬁc concern than nudity
in general, namely, nude dancing of the sort found in Kandy-
land.18 Given that the Court has not even tried to defend

17 Is it seriously contended (as would be necessary to sustain the ordi-
nance as a general prohibition) that, when crafting this bizarre deﬁnition
of “nudity,” Erie’s concern was with the use of simulated nipple covers on
“nude beaches and [by otherwise] unclothed purveyors of hot dogs and
machine tools”? Barnes, 501 U. S., at 574 (Scalia, J., concurring in judg-
ment); see also ante, at 308 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).
It is
true that one might conceivably imagine that is Erie’s aim. But it is far
more likely that this novel deﬁnition was written with the Kandyland
dancers and the like in mind, since they are the only ones covered by the
law (recall that plays like Equus are exempted from coverage) who are
likely to utilize such unconventional clothing.

18 The plurality states that Erie’s ordinance merely “replaces and up-
dates provisions of an ‘Indecency and Immorality’ ordinance” from the
mid-19th century, just as the statute in Barnes did. Ante, at 290. First
of all, it is not clear that this is correct. The record does indicate that