Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 361

529US1

Unit: $U42

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

286

ERIE v. PAP’S A. M.

Opinion of the Court

conducted an independent examination of the ordinance to
ascertain whether it was related to the suppression of ex-
pression. The court concluded that although one of the pur-
poses of the ordinance was to combat negative secondary
effects, “[i]nextricably bound up with this stated purpose is
. . to impact negatively on the
an unmentioned purpose .
erotic message of the dance.”
Id., at 359, 719 A. 2d, at 279.
As such, the court determined the ordinance was content
based and subject to strict scrutiny. The ordinance failed
the narrow tailoring requirement of strict scrutiny because
the court found that imposing criminal and civil sanctions on
those who commit sex crimes would be a far narrower means
of combating secondary effects than the requirement that
dancers wear pasties and G-strings.
Id., at 361–362, 719
A. 2d, at 280.

Concluding that the ordinance unconstitutionally burdened
respondent’s expressive conduct, the Pennsylvania court
then determined that, under Pennsylvania law, the public nu-
dity provisions of the ordinance could be severed rather than
striking the ordinance in its entirety. Accordingly, the court
severed §§ 1(c) and 2 from the ordinance and reversed the
order of the Commonwealth Court.
Id., at 363–364, 719
A. 2d, at 281. Because the court determined that the public
nudity provisions of the ordinance violated Pap’s right to
freedom of expression under the United States Constitution,
it did not address the constitutionality of the ordinance
under the Pennsylvania Constitution or the claim that the
ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad.

Ibid.

In a separate concurrence, two justices of the Pennsylvania
court noted that, because this Court upheld a virtually iden-
tical statute in Barnes, the ordinance should have been up-
held under the United States Constitution. 553 Pa., at 364,
719 A. 2d, at 281. They reached the same result as the ma-
jority, however, because they would have held that the public
nudity sections of the ordinance violate the Pennsylvania
Id., at 370, 719 A. 2d, at 284.
Constitution.