Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 352.0

529US1

Unit: $U42

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

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

277

Syllabus

CITY OF ERIE et al. v. PAP’S A. M., tdba
“KANDYLAND”

certiorari to the supreme court of pennsylvania

No. 98–1161. Argued November 10, 1999—Decided March 29, 2000

Erie, Pennsylvania, enacted an ordinance making it a summary offense
to knowingly or intentionally appear in public in a “state of nudity.”
Respondent Pap’s A. M. (hereinafter Pap’s), a Pennsylvania corporation,
operated “Kandyland,” an Erie establishment featuring totally nude
erotic dancing by women. To comply with the ordinance, these dancers
had to wear, at a minimum, “pasties” and a “G-string.” Pap’s ﬁled suit
against Erie and city ofﬁcials, seeking declaratory relief and a perma-
nent injunction against the ordinance’s enforcement. The Court of
Common Pleas struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional, but the
Commonwealth Court reversed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in
turn reversed, ﬁnding that the ordinance’s public nudity sections vio-
lated Pap’s right to freedom of expression as protected by the First
and Fourteenth Amendments. The Pennsylvania court held that nude
dancing is expressive conduct entitled to some quantum of protection
under the First Amendment, a view that the court noted was endorsed
by eight Members of this Court in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501
U. S. 560. The Pennsylvania court explained that, although one stated
purpose of the ordinance was to combat negative secondary effects,
there was also an unmentioned purpose to “impact negatively on the
erotic message of the dance.” Accordingly, the Pennsylvania court con-
cluded that the ordinance was related to the suppression of expression.
Because the ordinance was not content neutral, it was subject to strict
scrutiny. The court held that the ordinance failed the narrow tailoring
requirement of strict scrutiny. After this Court granted certiorari,
Pap’s ﬁled a motion to dismiss the case as moot, noting that Kandyland
no longer operated as a nude dancing club, and that Pap’s did not operate
such a club at any other location. This Court denied the motion.

Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

553 Pa. 348, 719 A. 2d 273, reversed and remanded.

Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court with respect
to Parts I and II, concluding that the case is not moot. A case is moot
when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome. County of Los Angeles v.
Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631. Simply closing Kandyland is not sufﬁcient to
moot the case because Pap’s is still incorporated under Pennsylvania