Case name: Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.

Opinion filed: 1986-04-21

Docket No.: 84-1360

Citations:
• 89 L. Ed. 2d 29
• 106 S. Ct. 925
• 475 U.S. 41
• 1986 U.S. LEXIS 2

Case holding summaries:
• appropriate inquiry for content neutral restrictions is "whether the * * * ordinance is designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and allows for reasonable alternative avenues of communication"
• city allowed to regulate adult movie theatres
• "[T]he First Amendment requires only that [the city] refrain from effectively denying respondents a reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult theater within the city[.]"
• ordinance at issue specifically stated that proscribed activities "would have a severe impact upon surrounding businesses and residences"
• “[Z]oning ordinances designed to combat the undesirable secondary effects of such businesses are to be reviewed under the standards applicable to ‘content-neutral’ time, place, and manner regulations.”
• “[The City has] sought to make some areas available for adult theaters and their patrons, while at the same time preserving the quality of life in the community at large by preventing those theaters from locating in other areas. This, after all, is the essence of zoning.”
• "[t]he District Court's finding as to 'predominate intent,' left undisturbed by the Court of Appeals, is more than adequate to establish that the city's pursuit of its zoning interests here was unrelated to the suppression of free expression"
• holding that local governments 20 1 may enact zoning ordinances against adult movie theaters to curb negative 2 “secondary effects”
• ordinance "by its terms [was] designed to prevent crime, protect city's retail trade, maintain property values, and generally protect and preserve the quality of the city's neighborhoods, commercial districts, and the quality of urban life"
• "[The City has] sought to make some areas available for adult theaters and their patrons, while at the same time preserving the quality of life in the community at large by preventing those theaters from locating in other areas. This, after all, is the essence of zoning."
• adult-oriented films also protected by First Amendment
• upholding a zoning ordinance applicable only to theaters showing adult films because its purpose was related to the films' secondary effects
• ordinance was aimed at the particular secondary effects that surround theaters featuring sexually explicit films
• concluding that Renton had not "singled out" adult theaters for discriminatory treatment and that there was no evidence of under-inclusiveness
• articulating a "secondary effects" test for distinguishing content-based from content-neutral regulations
• upholding a city ordinance that prohibited adult movie theaters within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, family dwelling, church, park or school since it left 520 acres or about five percent of the city land available for such theaters
• zoning restriction applicable to adult movie theaters content-neutral because aimed at secondary effects of such theaters
• “What motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not necessarily what motivates scores of others to enact it. . . .” (quoting United States v. O’Brien, 17 391 U.S. 367, 384 (1968))
• "[A] city's `interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect.'"
• "A city's interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect."
• upholding a zoning ordinance that prohibited adult motion picture theaters from operating in certain locations based upon the negative secondary effects created by such theaters
• explaining that “ ‘content-neutral’ speech regula tions” are “those that are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• under intermediate scrutiny, Renton could use evidence from Seattle regarding effects of adult theaters as long as the data was "reasonably believed to be relevant"
• "This Court has long held that regulations enacted for the purpose of restraining speech on the basis of its content presumptively violate the First Amendment."
• describing extensive studies and hearings conducted by Planning Committee
• finding zoning ordinance that limits placement of adult theaters content-neutral because it was "aimed not at the content of the films shown . . . but rather at the secondary effects of such theaters on the surrounding community"
• stating that zoning ordinance limiting placement of adult theatres was content neutral and valid as a time, place, manner regulation
• theater intended to “exhibit feature-length adult films”
• zoning ordinance restricting adult theaters to more than 1,000 feet from residential zones, dwellings, churches, parks, and schools
• classifying a restriction on the location of adult movie theaters as content neutral because the ordinance was aimed not at the content of the films shown, but rather at 9 the secondary effects of such theaters on the surrounding community
• "regulations enacted for the purpose of restraining speech on the basis of its content presumptively violate the First Amendment"
• ordinance regulating adult film theaters was content neutral because it was enacted to curb the secondary effects of such theaters on the surrounding community, and not the content of the films.
• applying the same principle in the regulatory context
• explaining that “‘content-neutral’ speech regulations as those that ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech’” (citations omitted)
• asserting that "a city's `interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect,'" quoting Young v. Am. Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 71, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976) (plurality opinion)
• permitting city to rely on experiences of different localities
• upholding a city's zoning ordinance designed to prevent the occurrence of harmful secondary effects, including the crime associated with adult entertainment, by limiting the area in which adult films could be shown
• allowing zoning restriction on adult theaters as long as the restrictions provide "reasonable alternative avenues of communication ... " for the explicit material
• "regulations enacted for the purpose of restraining speech on the basis of its content presumptively violate the First Amendment"
• explaining that "`content-neutral' speech regulations as those that `are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech'" (citations omitted)
• ordinance restricting theaters that show "adult" films to locations comprising about 5% of the community's land area, where the Court of Appeals had found no "commercially viable" sites were available
• the characterization of the dissenting opinion of Justice Brennan
• implicitly placing burden of proof on city
• applying a deferential level of scrutiny to a zoning ordinance prohibiting adult motion picture theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single or multiple-family dwelling, church, park or school. See, id. 106 S.Ct. at 937, Brennan, J., dissenting
• "[t]he appropriate inquiry ... is whether the ... ordinance is designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and allows for reasonable alternative avenues of communication"
• “[t]he Renton ordinance is ‘narrowly tailored’ to affect only that category of theaters shown to produce the unwanted secondary (continued...
• holding that five percent of city’s land area, consisting of sites said not to be “commercially viable,” provides sufficient alternative locations for an adult theater
• city could rely on experiences of other cities in enacting its adult theater zoning ordinance
• city ordinance which "leaves some 520 acres, or more than five percent of the entire land are of [the city], open to use as adult theater sites" allows for reasonable alternative avenues of communication
• “[R]espondents can fare no better under the Equal Protection Clause than under the First 18 Amendment itself.”

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews (1)