Legal Document

541 U.S. 774 CITY OF LITTLETON, COLORADOv.Z. J. GIFTS D-4, L. C., DBA CHRISTAL'S No. 02-1609. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 24, 2004. Decided June 7, Under petitioner city's "adult business license" ordinance, the decision to deny a license may be appealed state district court pursuant Colorado Rules Civil Procedure. Respondent Z. Gifts C. (hereinafter ZJ), opened an adult bookstore in place not zoned for businesses. Instead applying license, ZJ filed suit attacking ordinance as facially unconstitutional. The Federal District rejected ZJ's claims, but Tenth Circuit held, relevant here, that law does assure constitutionally required "prompt final judicial decision." Held: meets First Amendment's requirement such licensing scheme prompt review administrative denying license. Pp. 778-784. (a) rejects claim its need only provide access review, determination," applicant's legal claim. city concedes Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 59, listing necessary "safeguards" applicable motion picture censorship statute, spoke decision," adds JUSTICE O'CONNOR'S controlling plurality opinion FW/PBS, Inc. Dallas, 493 215, which addressed scheme, did use word "decision," instead speaking "possibility review," id., at 228 (emphasis added). FW/PBS opinion, however, points out Freedman's "judicial review" safeguard is meant prevent "undue delay," S., 228, includes judicial, well administrative, delay. A delay issuing decision, no less than obtaining court, can from being "issued within reasonable period time." Ibid. Nothing suggests contrary. 778-781. (b) However, accepts satisfies any determination" requirement, agreeing should modify withdrawing implication special rules — e. g., strict time limits apply this case. Colorado's ordinary suffice long courts remain sensitive Amendment harms and administer those procedures accordingly. And whether do so matter normally fit case-by-case determination rather facial challenge. Four considerations support conclusion. First, procedural practices give reviewing tools sufficient avoid delay-related harm. Indeed, arrange their schedules "accelerate" proceedings, higher grant expedited review. Second, there reason doubt judges' willingness exercise these powers wisely serious threats delay-induced federal remedies would additional safety valve event problem. Third, typical harm issue here differs Freedman, diminishing case imposing decisionmaking limits. Unlike seek censor material. applies reasonably objective, nondiscretionary criteria unrelated content expressive materials sell or display. These are simple enough application unlikely practice suppress totally specific item material community. criteria's objective nature means case, too, prove simple, hence expeditious. Finally, nothing requires State safeguards all sets forth scheme. 781-784. 311 F. 3d 1220, reversed. BREYER, J., delivered Court, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined, STEVENS, joined Parts I II-B, SOUTER KENNEDY, except Part II-B. concurring part judgment, post, p. 784. SOUTER, 786. SCALIA, 787. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR TENTH CIRCUIT. 2 Andrew Nathan argued cause petitioner. With him on briefs were Heidi Hugdahl, Scott D. Bergthold, Larry W. Berkowitz, Brad Bailey. 3 Douglas R. Cole, Solicitor Ohio, brief Ohio et al. amici curiae under Court's Rule 12.6. Jim Petro, Attorney General Rebecca Thomas, Assistant Solicitor, Dan Schweitzer, Attorneys respective States follows: William H. Pryor, Jr., Alabama, Ken Salazar Colorado, M. Jane Brady Delaware, Mark Bennett Hawaii, Steve Carter Indiana, Thomas Miller Iowa, Reilly Massachusetts, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, A. Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Paul G. Summers Tennessee, Greg Abbott Texas, Shurtleff Utah, Sorrell Vermont. 4 Michael Gross respondent. Arthur Schwartz Cindy Schwartz.* 5 BREYER Court. 6 In we examine business" determine it See 215 (1990); cf. 51 (1965). We conclude before us, considered face, consistent with demands. 7 * Littleton, has enacted bookstore, novelty store video store" have license." Littleton City Code §§ 3-14-2, 3-14-4 (2003), App. Brief Petitioner 13a-20a, 23a. defines business"; applicant certain basic information about business; insists upon compliance local (and other) zoning rules; lists eight circumstances presence license; (typically amounting 40 days) officials must reach decision. 3-14-3, 3-14-5, 3-14-7, 3-14-8, 13a-30a. "appealed [state] civil procedure 106(a)(4)." § 3-14-8(B)(3), 30a. 8 1999, respondent, company called sells books" Compare Tr. Oral Arg. 13 (store "within 500 feet church day care center") 3-14-3(B), 21a (forbidding businesses locations). brought lawsuit Littleton's unconstitutional face. claims; appeal Appeals accepted two them, 1224 (2002). held "does [the city's] decisions will given [judicial] review"; decision" Constitution Id., 1238. It also another provision (not now us) ground threatened lengthy delay—a problem believes cured by amending ordinance. 1233-1234, 27a-28a, 3. Throughout continued operate. 9 asked Circuit's determination, granted certiorari light lower uncertainty issue. Compare, 3d, 1238 (First denial); Nightclubs, Paducah, 202 884, 892-893 (CA6 2000) (same); Baby Tam & Co. Las Vegas, 154 1097, 1101-1102 (CA9 1998) 11126 Baltimore Blvd., Prince George's County, 58 988, 998-1001 (CA4 1995) (en banc) (same), Boss Capital, Casselberry, 187 1251, 1256-1257 (CA11 1999) (Constitution courts); TK's Video, Denton 24 705, 709 (CA5 1994) see Chicago Park Dist., 534 316, 325-326 (2002) (noting split); News Novelty, Waukesha, 531 278, 281 (2001) (same). II 10 claims rest essentially arguments. requirements found access" denial require assurance event, requirement. reject first argument, accept second. 11 rests reading cases, FW/PBS. "motion statute"—a statute "`owner lessee'" film, prior exhibiting submit film Maryland Board Censors obtain approval. 52, n. (quoting statute). said, "a noncriminal process submission avoids constitutional infirmity if takes designed obviate dangers system." 58. added include (1) leading speedy minimizing "prior restraint"-type effects, (2) burden proof favoring speech, (3) (using language here) "procedure" "assure minimize deterrent effect interim possibly erroneous 58-59 12 "regulates sexually oriented through incorporating zoning, licensing, inspections." 220-221. majority violated because impose kind described Freedman. doing so, three Members wrote "the full protections set required," nonetheless comply "core policy"—including somewhat different Freedman's) possibility erroneously denied." (opinion J.) Three other apply, including available." 239 (Brennan, judgment). dissent all. 244-245 (White, dissenting part); 250 (SCALIA, part). differing linguistic descriptions opinions. "safeguards," 59. But review." added); 229 ("an avenue review"); 230 ("availability review"). This difference between says city, makes major difference: Amendment, applied demands courts, 14 our view, argument too much little. While clear "core" context schemes, purport radically alter requirements. To contrary, immediately reference safeguard, says: 15 "The core policy underlying Amendment-protected issued time, undue results suppression protected speech. Thus, [Freedman] essential . ." 228. 16 words, pointing Thus read opinion's together similar Justice Brennan's separate (joined Justices), 239, encompassing arguments B 17 find second more convincing. importance assuring "prompt" illustrating what "model" involved "hearing one after joinder issue" "decision days termination hearing." 60. 2- 3-day limits; insist write detailed into itself. sum, offer adequate assurance, promptly obtained, forthcoming. 18 effect, argues argument. conclusion several reasons. 19 practices, elsewhere, where necessary, proceedings. Colo. Civ. Proc. 106(a)(4)(VIII) (2003). quickly adverse decisions. See, Goebel Dept. Institutions, 764 P. 2d 785, 792 (Colo. 1988) (granting "expedited 20 judges presume aware result[ing] speech." supra, 228; also, Schlesinger Councilman, 420 738, 756 (1975). There evidence us court-related respect. some problems, valve. Rev. Stat. 1979, 42 1983. 21 created Censors, had decide was "`pornographic,'" tended "`debase corrupt morals,'" lacked "`whatever merits.'" 52-53, If denied permit could shown. subjective standards likely complete censorship. 22 contrast, "shall" underage; provides false information; year revoked suspended; (4) operated determined "public nuisance" year; (5) (if corporation) authorized State; (6) timely paid taxes, fees, fines, penalties; (7) obtained sales tax (for required, 16-17); (8) been convicted crimes five years. 3-14-8(A), 28a-29a 23 Some applicants satisfy even others not; community contain outlets supplier able outlets; potential buyer seller. Nor material, system seeks where, whether, sold. Renton Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 41, 46 (1986). upshot "not present grave `dangers system.'" 58). Where so— example, opening outlet, improperly threatened— act Fourth, itself said: "How incorporate statutory is, course, decide." statement surprising fact many cities towns lack state-law authority deadlines courts. 25 four considerations, taken together, indicate least purposes challenge (as FW/PBS) regulation simply conditions operation neutral criteria, 785 (STEVENS, judgment), content, entitled unusually type. flexible while using power significant interests require. Of licenses future free raise problems individual cases applied. 26 For reasons, judgment 27 Reversed. Notes: Briefs ofamici urging reversal Community Defense Counsel David Langdon Benjamin Bull; National League Cities Richard Ruda Charles Rothfeld. affirmance American Booksellers Foundation Free Expression Bamberger; Lawyers Association Louis Sirkin. 28 judgment. 29 important conditioning hand, exhibition consent censor. former aspect routine municipal government. latter species content-based restraint. Cf. Graff Chicago, 1309, 1330-1333 (CA7 1993) (Flaum, concurring). 30 implicated whenever newsstand, theater, begin reason, O'CONNOR explained her 226 (1990), engage activity accompanied avert speech suppressed." recognized complement "present system'" required" adult-business (1965)). both contexts, speech," therefore made denied," ibid. "ministerial action" regulates discretionary prohibits 229. failure subject presumption invalidity attaches "direct particular material." accordingly declined licensor, like censor, either bear going otherwise assume responsibility ensuring validity 31 today reinterprets FW/PBS's references "`the review'" equivalent "`prompt' Ante, 780-781. fear misinterpretation invite other, misinterpretations respect As little decision—the same promptness available person files "ordinary practices." 781-782. That generally guard against risk remedy criteria. mere emphatically insufficient unjustified presented type certainly 32 differences schemes systems warrant imposition protections, party taking adhere views expressed, thus join II-A opinion. do, II-B 33 whom KENNEDY joins, 34 agree unlike full-blown censorship, ante, 782-784, timetable (1965), survive separately emphasize make possible align disposition emphasis matters, although suspect neither innocuous common zoning. triggered Los Angeles Alameda Books, 535 425, 448 (KENNEDY, judgment) ("These ordinances based, call them so"); 455-457 (SOUTER, dissenting). Because sellers unpopular authorities, process. foot dragging, immediate intervention oversight stage proceedings 35 36 Were respondent engaged question facts (though reasoning). Such activity, when subjected general priority notion media corporations entitlement accelerated variances absurd. 37 believe, Amendment. view expressed (1990) part): pandering sex municipality intentionally specializes in, holds public specializing performance portrayal acts, sexual organs arousal, live human nudity." 258. represents Nation's understanding adopted Ginzburg States, 383 463, 470-471 (1966). targets sex-pandering businesses, 3-14-2 (2003); extent expression excess great render substantially overbroad invalidation, 261-262. Since "could proscribed commercial activities chose think details standards." 253.

Classification Label: 2