Document: 452 U.S. 714 101 S.Ct. 2599 69 L.Ed.2d 357 NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITYv.Dennis BELLANCA, dba The Main Event, et al. No. 80-813. June 22, 1981. PER CURIAM. 1 question presented in this case is the power of a State to prohibit topless dancing an establishment licensed by serve liquor. In 1977, New York amended its Alcoholic Beverage Control Law nude establishments sell liquor for on-premises consumption. N.Y.Alco.Bev.Cont.Law, § 106, subd. 6-a (McKinney Supp.1980-1981).1 statute does not provide criminal penalties, but violation may cause lose license. 2 Respondents, owners nightclubs, bars, and restaurants which had number years offered dancing, brought declaratory judgment action state court, alleging that violates First Amendment United States Constitution insofar as it prohibits all premises. Supreme Court, 50 N.Y.2d 524, 429 N.Y.S.2d 616, 407 N.E.2d 460, declared unconstitutional, Court Appeals affirmed divided vote. 460. It reasoned was form protected expression under demonstrated need prohibiting "licensees from presenting nonobscene performances willing customers. . ." Id., at 529, N.Y.S.2d, 619, N.E.2d, 463. dissent contended well within State's power, conferred Twenty-first Amendment, regulate sale boundaries.2 We agree with reasoning now reverse decision Appeals. 3 This has long recognized absolute totally boundaries. Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves, 308 132, 138, 60 163, 167, 84 L.Ed. 128 (1939). equally established broad times, places, circumstances be sold. California LaRue, 409 109, 93 390, 34 342 (1972), we upheld facial constitutionality acts "gross sexuality," including display genitals live or filmed sexual acts, Although prohibited would found obscene were therefore entitled some measure protection, 4 Doran Salem Inn, Inc., 422 922, 95 2561, 45 648 (1975), considered challenge local ordinance females appearing just "any public place." Though concluded District abused discretion granting preliminary injunction against enforcement ordinance, limit our holding LaRue. First, because arose context injunction, limited standard review whether concluding plaintiffs likely prevail on merits their claim, actually violated Amendment. Thus, "final judicial based actual controversy." University Texas Camenisch, 451 396, 1830, 1834, 68 175 (1981). Second, far broader than involved either LaRue here, since proscribed conduct place," term " 'could include theater, town hall, opera place, market street any place assembly, indoors outdoors.' U.S., 933, S.Ct., 2568 (quoting Frank, 364 F.Supp. 478, 483 (EDNY 1973)). Here, contrast, attempted ban place": As statute's prohibition applies only are Indeed, explicitly more narrowly drawn survive scrutiny: 5 "Although customary 'barroom' type involve barest minimum expression, 118 [93 397, 342] entertainment might Fourteenth protection circumstances. however, powers liquor, outweighed interest could such part license control program." 932-933, 2568-2569. 6 Judged standards announced Doran, issue here unconstitutional. What Legislature done precisely what said do. Pursuant boundaries, banned granted alcoholic beverages entirely includes lesser premises where occurs. 7 Respondents nonetheless insist distinguishable case, there sexuality" supported legislative findings demonstrating rule. They argue unconstitutional applied no finding poses anywhere near problem posed sexuality." But even if explicit required uphold those exist case. purposes have been set forth accompanying memorandum, Legislative Annual 150 (1977). 8 "Nudity kind proper subject regulation Liquor Authority phase licensing. held constitute disorderly behavior meaning 9 "Common sense indicates nudity coupled alcohol begets undesirable behavior. legislation will once all, outlaw quite out hand." 10 short, elected representatives chosen avoid disturbances associated mixing means reasonable restriction upon Given "added presumption favor validity regulation" 118, cannot Constitution. Whatever artistic communicative value attach overcome exercise arising quarrel wisdom consider harmless diversion, makes policy legislature, courts. 11 Accordingly, petition certiorari granted, reversed, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 12 so ordered. 13 Justice MARSHALL concurs judgment. 14 BRENNAN dissents summary disposition oral argument. 15 STEVENS, dissenting. 16 written several opinions implying partially expressive activity never directly confronted question.1 Today construes source permitting presumably activities relies 342, construction rationale today's same explanation gave syllogism supporting conclusion premise assumed occurs.2 If sound, then premises, matter how innocuous or, importantly, clearly protected.3 17 instead relying simplistic employed today, majority analyzed balancing interests preventing specifically identified social harms minimal implicated dancing.4 opinion reflected view degree afforded variable, slight free naked lewd plainly interest—supported findings—in maintaining order decency.5 provided presumption," tip scales direction law order,6 opinion's evaluation conflicting surely led result without makeweight.7 18 heavily relied counterpart 1977 amendment left effect time. Prior permitted performer dance stage inaccessible patrons.8 indicated evidence regulated produced consequences. A memorandum (1977), see ante, 717-718, notes "long held" existed, sheds light whatever nudity.9 stated "was prompted hearings awareness deficiencies prior restrictions continued supervision Authority." 530, 620, 464. 19 I believe must assume pre-1977 adequately avoided rise challenged emphasis Court's merely disguised real holding, wrong today when implies factors also present change dancing. 20 Having this, confess commercial squarely merits, conclude sort resolved community. Sooner later briefed argued own merits.10 should continue obscure irrelevancies mischievous suggestion gives censor places served.11 Neither language12 nor history provides support suggestion.13 Nor justify it.14 Without aid ordinary police adequate nuisances taverns elsewhere. Cf. Young American Mini Theatres, 427 50, 96 2440, 49 310. 21 voted deny allow highest court stand, having granted. basis blatantly incorrect reading provides: "No retail licensee consumption shall suffer permit person appear manner attire expose portion pubic area, anus, vulva genitals, simulation thereof, female breast below top areola, thereof." relevant "[t]he transportation importation into State, Territory, possession delivery use therein intoxicating liquors, laws hereby prohibited." See Salem, Inn., 648; Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. Conrad, 420 546, 557-558, 1239, 1245-1246, 43 448; 342; Schad Mount Ephraim, 61, 2176, 671. "The occurs." Ante, 717. Rejecting reasoning, noted "it most difficult sustain political discussions sold drink, though record show, conclusively, bars often lead behavior, assaults homicide." 531, n. 7, 464, 7. recounted detail consequences—described adduced hearings—resulting performance cocktail lounges. 111-112, 393-394. After emphasizing eliminating consequences turned discussion "as mode moves printed page commission themselves violate valid penal statutes, scope permissible regulations significantly increases." 117, 396. minimizing recognizing regulating stated: substance struck down nightclubs displaying, movies entertainment, 'performances' partake gross sexuality communication.. ". [W]e conceive authority area somewhat did Court. say Amendments. poorly both validly seek vindication Amendments bacchanalian revelries Department sought prevent these constitutional equivalent scantily clad ballet troupe theater." 397. confers "something normal over health, welfare, morals." 114, 395. discussing decisions construing that, "[t]hese go hold supersedes other provisions regulations." 115, States, "vested they general require specific grant Federal legislate respect matters traditionally power.. Control's "conclusion certain dispensation drink ought occur licenses irrational one. added requires, face Constitution." 118-119, premises" "to areola" contained exception entertainer performing platform least inches above immediate floor level removed six feet nearest patron." N.Y.2d, 526, 2, 617, 461-462, 2. incorporated incorporate exception. Supp.1980-1981). difference between emphasized nature respondents' challenge: "In before us do claim right offer filmed, simulated. concerned There contention dancers unclothed, thus nudity. contest women barebreasted Similarly Authority's past. Finally, course, exempted obscenity always allowed how, performed. extent absolutely licensees customers circumstances." seem me appropriately conducted served. board allowing practical Hostetter Idlewild Corp., 377 324, 1293, 350, Commerce Clause included reminder pertinent here: "Both parts Like Constitution, each other, issues stake concrete case." 332, 1298. That admonition important instant inasmuch drafters intended impact Clause. conclusion, contrary unsupported Dealers Assn. Midcal Aluminum, 445 97, 106-107, 100 937, 943-944, 63 233, rejected application Sherman Act California's system wine pricing pointed "determining focused primarily language provision interpretation plain dramatic. section Craig Boren, 190, 206, 97 451, "[t]his confirmed created operation Clause." unequivocally sustaining otherwise Equal Protection Clause: "Once passing beyond consideration Clause, relevance becomes increasingly doubtful. one commentator remarked: 'Neither text suggests qualifies individual rights Bill Rights concerned.' P. Brest, Processes Constitutional Decisionmaking, Cases Materials, 258 (1975). Any departures historical sporadic." Ibid. Wisconsin Constantineau, 400 433, 91 507, 27 515. Surely status equal Ironically, adopts argument appellant expressly disclaimed during : "QUESTION: Mr. Porter, your Twenty-First dealing beverages? "MR. PORTER: Based interests, submit traditional conditions surrounding given substantial we're talking about beverages. "We argued, ever argue, automatically override urge that— Well, overrode great deal commerce clause, hasn't it? Well,— And does, terms. That's correct, I— good clause Younger Yes, that—or would, myself, attempt temper somewhat, think shows overriding weighing you get up so-called, alleged, preferred amendments "As said, overrides weight weighing, outweighs Amendment." Tr. Oral Arg. O.T.1972, 71-36, pp. 10-12.

Category: 2