Opinion ID: 76258
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: California v. LaRue and Doran v. Salem Inn

Text: 12 The Supreme Court first recognized the existence of First Amendment freedom of expression rights in the adult entertainment context in California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 93 S.Ct. 390, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972). In that case, the Court upheld the constitutionality of state-wide licensing regulations enacted by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control that prohibited sexually explicit live entertainment in establishments licensed to sell liquor. The Court held that California had broad latitude under the Twenty-first Amendment to control the manner and circumstances under which liquor may be sold. 4 The Court acknowledged that at least some of the performances to which these regulations address themselves are within the limits of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. LaRue, 409 U.S. at 118, 93 S.Ct. 390. However, the Court emphasized that the critical fact is that California has not forbidden these performances across the board but merely proscribed such performances in establishments that it licenses to sell liquor by the drink. Id. 13 However, in Doran v. Salem Inn, 422 U.S. 922, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975), the Court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a town ordinance which proscribed topless dancing in bars as well as prohibiting any female from appearing in `any public place' with uncovered breasts. Doran, 422 U.S. at 933, 95 S.Ct. 2561. 5 The Court declared that although the customary `barroom' type of nude dancing may involve only the barest minimum of protected expression, we recognized [in LaRue ] that this form of entertainment might be entitled to First and Fourteenth Amendment protection in some circumstances. Id. at 932, 95 S.Ct. 2561. The Court held that, unlike the regulations at issue in LaRue, the ordinance in Doran was overbroad because it applied to all commercial establishments, not only those selling liquor by the drink, and thus was not justifiable under the Twenty-first Amendment. 6