Citation. 22 Ill.529 U.S. 277, 120 S. Ct. 1382, 146 L. Ed. 2d 265, 28 Med. L. Rptr. 1545 (2000)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here
Brief Fact Summary.
The Petitioner, City of Erie (Petitioner), enacted an ordinance banning public nudity. The Respondent, Pap’s A.M. (Respondent), challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance, maintaining its freedom of expression (as a nude dancing establishment) was violated.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
When it is of public interest to regulate the safety and well being of citizens, a City may enact an ordinance, which has minor suppressive effects on some, for the greater good of the whole.
The Respondent owned and operated an establishment known as Kandyland, which featured totally nude erotic dancing. When Petitioner enacted the ordinance, Respondent’s dancers were forced to wear thong panties and pasties, as opposed to being totally nude. The Respondent argued that this was a violation of its freedom of expression. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held for the Respondents and the Petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) granted certiorari.
This case considers whether a city ordinance, facially designed to protect the public from the secondary effects of public nudity (prostitution, etc