Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 377.0

529US1

Unit: $U42

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

302

ERIE v. PAP’S A. M.

Scalia, J., concurring in judgment

means analysis is not required. See Ward, 491 U. S., at 798–
799, n. 6.

We hold, therefore, that Erie’s ordinance is a content-
neutral regulation that is valid under O’Brien. Accordingly,
the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is re-
versed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins,

concurring in the judgment.

I

In my view, the case before us here is moot. The Court
concludes that it is not because respondent could resume its
nude dancing operations in the future, and because petition-
ers have suffered an ongoing, redressable harm consisting of
the state court’s invalidation of their public nudity ordinance.
As to the ﬁrst point: Petitioners do not dispute that Kan-
dyland no longer exists; the building in which it was located
has been sold to a real estate developer, and the premises
are currently being used as a comedy club. We have a
sworn afﬁdavit from respondent’s sole shareholder, Nick
Panos, to the effect that Pap’s “operates no active business,”
and is “a ‘shell’ corporation.” More to the point, Panos
swears that neither Pap’s nor Panos “employ[s] any individu-
als involved in the nude dancing business,” “maintain[s] any
contacts in the adult entertainment business,” “has any cur-
rent interest in any establishment providing nude dancing,”
or “has any intention to own or operate a nude dancing
establishment in the future.” 1 App. to Reply to Brief in
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 7–8.

1 Curiously, the Court makes no mention of Panos’ averment of no inten-
tion to operate a nude dancing establishment in the future, but discusses
the issue as though the only factor suggesting mootness is the closing
I see no basis for ignoring this aver-
of Kandyland. Ante, at 287–288.