Court Opinion

ID: 9428386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:23:35.886586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:13.208749
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
concurring in the judgment.
The record in this case leaves so many relevant questions unanswered that the outcome, in my judgment, depends on the allocation of the burden of persuasion. If the case is viewed as a simple attempt by a small residential community to exclude the commercial exploitation of nude dancing from a “setting of tranquility,” post, at 85 (Burger, C. J., dissenting), it would seem reasonable to require appellants to over*80come the usual presumption that a municipality’s zoning enactments are constitutionally valid. To prevail in this case, appellants at least would be required to show that the exclusion was applied selectively, or perhaps that comparable expressive activity is not “amply available in close-by areas outside the limits of the Borough.” Ante, at 76 (opinion of the Court). On the other hand, if one starts, as the Court does, from the premise that “appellants’ claims are rooted in the First Amendment,” ante, at 66, it would seem reasonable to require the Borough to overcome a presumption of invalidity. The Borough could carry this burden by showing that its ordinances were narrowly drawn and furthered “a sufficiently substantial government interest.” Ante, at 68 (opinion of the Court) (footnote omitted).
Neither of these characterizations provides me with a satisfactory approach to this case. For appellants’ business is located in a commercial zone, and the character of that zone is not unequivocally identified either by the text of the Borough’s zoning ordinance or by the evidence in the record. And even though the foliage of the First Amendment may cast protective shadows over some forms of nude dancing,1 its roots were germinated by more serious concerns that are not necessarily implicated by a content-neutral zoning ordinance banning commercial exploitation of live entertainment. Cf. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 60-61.
One of the puzzling features of this case is that the character of the prohibition the Borough seeks to enforce is so hard to ascertain. Because the written zoning ordinance purports to ban all commercial uses except those that are specifically listed — and because no form of entertainment is listed — literally it prohibits the commercial exploitation not only of live entertainment, but of motion pictures and inanimate forms *81as well.2 But the record indicates that what actually happens in this commercial zone may bear little resemblance to what is described in the text of the zoning ordinance.
The commercial zone in which appellants’ adult bookstore is located is situated along the Black Horse Pike, a north-south artery on the eastern fringe of the Borough.3 The parties seem to agree that this commercial zone is relatively small; presumably, therefore, it contains only a handful of cominercial establishments. Among these establishments are Al-Jo’s, also known as the Club Al-Jo, My Dad’s, and Capri-otti’s, all of which offer live entertainment.4 In addition, *82the zone contains the Mount Ephraim Democratic Club, the Spread Eagle Inn, and Guiseppi’s.5 The record also contains isolated references to establishments known as the Villa Picasso and Millie’s.6 Although not mentioned in the record, Mount Ephraim apparently also supports a commercial motion picture theater.7
The record reveals very little about the character of most of these establishments, and it reveals nothing at all about the motion picture theater. The one fact that does appear with clarity from the present record is that, in 1973, appellants were issued an amusement license that authorized them to exhibit adult motion pictures which their patrons viewed in private booths in their adult bookstore. Borough officials apparently regarded this business as lawful under the zoning ordinance and compatible with the immediate neighborhood until July 1976 when appellants repainted their exterior sign and modified their interior exhibition.8
*83Without more information about this commercial enclave on Black Horse Pike, one cannot know whether the change in appellants’ business in 1976 introduced cacophony into a tranquil setting or merely a new refrain in a local replica of Place Pigalle. If I were convinced that the former is the correct appraisal of this commercial zone, I would have no hesitation in agreeing with The Chief Justice that even if the live nude dancing is a form of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, the Borough may prohibit it.9 But when the record is opaque, as this record is, I believe the Borough must shoulder the burden of demonstrating that appellants’ introduction of live entertainment had an identifiable adverse impact on the neighborhood or on the Borough as a whole. It might be appropriate to presume that such an adverse impact would occur if the zoning plan itself were narrowly drawn to create categories of commercial uses that unambiguously differentiated this entertainment from permitted uses. However, this open-ended ordinance affords no basis for any such presumption.
The difficulty in this case is that we are left to speculate as to the Borough’s reasons for proceeding against appellants’ *84business, and as to the justification for the distinction the Borough has drawn between live and other forms of entertainment. While a municipality need not persuade a federal court that its zoning decisions are correct as a matter of policy, when First Amendment interests are implicated, ft must at least be able to demonstrate that a uniform policy in fact exists and is applied in a content-neutral fashion. Presumably, municipalities may regulate expressive activity — even protected activity — pursuant to narrowly drawn content-neutral standards; however, they may not regulate protected activity when the only standard provided is the unbridled discretion of a municipal official. Compare Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558, with Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77.10 Because neither the text of the zoning ordinance nor the evidence in the record indicates that Mount Ephraim applied narrowly drawn content-neutral standards to the appellants’ business, for me this case involves a criminal prosecution of appellants simply because one of their employees has engaged in expressive activity that has been assumed, arguendo, to be protected by the First Amendment.11 Ac*85cordingly, and without endorsing the overbreadth analysis employed by the Court, I concur in its judgment.

See, e. g., Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 932; Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546, 557-558; California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109, 118.

 Section 99-15B of the Mount Ephraim Code, quoted ante, at 63 (opinion of the Court), lists the land uses permitted in the Borough’s commercial zones. No form of entertainment is included in this list. Section 99-4 of the Code provides that “[a] 11 uses not expressly permitted in this chapter are prohibited.”

 At oral argument in this Court, counsel for the appellants asserted that the commercial zone extends for 250 feet on either side of the Black Horse Pike, and that the remainder of the Borough is zoned for residential use. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 5. The Chief Justice, in dissent, apparently relies upon counsel’s description of Mount Ephraim’s zoning pattern in support of his contention that Mount Ephraim is a quiet, “ ‘bedroom’ community” into which appellants have thrust the disruptive influence of nude dancing. See post, at 85. However, counsel’s assertion is unsupported by the record in this case, and indeed is inconsistent with the Borough’s zoning ordinance. The Zoning Map of the Borough of Mount Ephraim indicates that, rather than containing a single commercial zone, Mount Ephraim in fact contains four commercial zones. Section 99-8 of the Mount Ephraim Code states that the boundaries of the zoning districts created by § 99-7 of the Code “are hereby established as shown on the map entitled ‘Zoning Map of the Borough of Mount Ephraim’ which accompanies and is hereby made a part of this chapter.” The record does not reveal to what extent, if any, the three additional commercial zones have been commercially developed, but it is apparent from the Borough’s Code that Mount Ephraim either has accepted or is prepared to accept a greater degree of commercial development than that presently found in the vicinity of appellants’ bookstore.

 See Munic. Ct. Tr. 21-22, 35-37, 55, 58-59, 67. My Dad’s, which is located directly across the street from appellants’ bookstore, features a *82musical combo that plays music from a stage; a vocalist also performs there on occasion. Id., at 25, 35-36. Capriotti’s, a dinner elub/dis-cotheque, and Al-Jo’s also feature live performances by musical groups. Id., at 22, 36, 55, 58-59. The Borough permits live entertainment in these establishments as a prior nonconforming use.

 See id., at 19-20. Appellants’ counsel, in his examination of the Borough’s building inspector at the Municipal Court trial, attempted to establish that some or all of these establishments had been issued amusement licenses by the Borough. The building inspector, whose duties did not include the issuance or supervision of amusement licenses, was unable to answer counsel’s questions. See ibid.

 See id., at 21, 38.

 Counsel for both parties informed the Court at oral argument that a motion picture theater is in operation in Mount Ephraim. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, 9, 37-39. The theater apparently is located near and to the east of appellants’ bookstore. See id., at 9. According to counsel for the Borough, the theater is permitted as a prior nonconforming use. See id., at 37-39; see also ante, at 67, n. 6 (opinion of the Court).

 The Borough objected to both the exterior and the interior changes. A substantial part of the proceedings in the Municipal Court and the Camden County Court concerned the repainting of the sign, a dispute *83which appellants ultimately won in the state courts. See App. to Juris. Statement 5a-6a.

 The Chief Justice states:
“It is clear that, in passing the ordinance challenged here, the citizens of the Borough of Mount Ephraim meant only to preserve the basic character of their community. It is just as clear that, by thrusting their live nude dancing shows on this community, the appellants alter and damage that community over its objections.” Post, at 86.
The problem with The Chief Justice’s analysis, in my judgment, is that “the basic character of [the] community” is not at all clear on the basis of the present record. Although Mount Ephraim apparently is primarily a residential community, it is also a community that in 1973 deemed an adult bookstore that exhibited adult motion pictures, or “peep shows,” not inconsistent with its basic character. I simply cannot say with confidence that the addition of a live nude dancer to this commercial zone in 1976 produced a dramatic change in the community’s character.

 The open-ended character of the prohibition in the Mount Ephraim Code, see n. 2, supra, presents an opportunity for the exercise of just such unbridled discretion. The Borough has, at different stages of this litigation, advanced two different interpretations of that prohibition. According to one, all commercial entertainment is prohibited within the boundaries of Mount Ephraim; according to the other, only commercial live entertainment is prohibited. See ante, at 67, n. 6 (opinion of the Court). Appellants have suggested yet a third possible interpretation. They maintain that the prohibition is applied only against live nude dancing.

 Like Justice Powell, ante, at 79 (concurring opinion), I have no doubt that some residential communities may, pursuant to a carefully drawn ordinance, regulate or ban commercial public entertainment within their boundaries. Surely, a municipality zoned entirely for residential use need not create a special commercial zone solely to accommodate purveyors of entertainment. Cf. Valley View Village v. Proffett, 221 F. 2d 412, 417-418 (CA6 1955) (Steward J.) (zoning ordinance' that provides only *85for residential use is not per se invalid). Mount Ephraim, however, is not such a municipality.