Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 360.0

529US1

Unit: $U42

[10-11-01 11:58:07] PAGES PGT: OPIN

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

285

Opinion of the Court

itself, is not entitled to First Amendment protection because
Id., at 354, 719 A. 2d, at 276. Nude
it conveys no message.
dancing, however, is expressive conduct that is entitled to
some quantum of protection under the First Amendment, a
view that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted was
endorsed by eight Members of this Court in Barnes. 553
Pa., at 354, 719 A. 2d, at 276.

The Pennsylvania court next inquired whether the govern-
ment interest in enacting the ordinance was content neutral,
explaining that regulations that are unrelated to the sup-
pression of expression are not subject to strict scrutiny but
to the less stringent standard of United States v. O’Brien,
supra, at 377. To answer the question whether the ordi-
nance is content based, the court turned to our decision in
Barnes.
553 Pa., at 355–356, 719 A. 2d, at 277. Although
the Pennsylvania court noted that the Indiana statute at
issue in Barnes “is strikingly similar to the Ordinance we
are examining,” it concluded that “[u]nfortunately for our
purposes, the Barnes Court splintered and produced four
separate, non-harmonious opinions.”
553 Pa., at 356, 719
A. 2d, at 277. After canvassing these separate opinions, the
Pennsylvania court concluded that, although it is permissible
to ﬁnd precedential effect in a fragmented decision, to do so
a majority of the Court must have been in agreement on the
concept that is deemed to be the holding. See Marks v.
United States, 430 U. S. 188 (1977). The Pennsylvania court
noted that “aside from the agreement by a majority of the
Barnes Court that nude dancing is entitled to some First
Amendment protection, we can ﬁnd no point on which a ma-
jority of the Barnes Court agreed.” 553 Pa., at 358, 719
A. 2d, at 278. Accordingly, the court concluded that “no
clear precedent arises out of Barnes on the issue of whether
the [Erie] ordinance .
. passes muster under the First
Amendment.”

Ibid.

.

Having determined that there was no United States
Supreme Court precedent on point, the Pennsylvania court