Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionZoningadult theaterszoningcontent classificationequal protection

Facts

Detroit amended its Anti-Skid Row Ordinance to require adult motion picture theaters to be dispersed rather than concentrated. An adult theater could not be located within 1,000 feet of any two other regulated uses or within 500 feet of a residential area, and a theater was classified as adult based on whether it emphasized specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas. The city adopted the amendments in response to growth in such establishments and evidence from planners and real estate experts that clustering them tended to attract transients, depress property values, increase crime, and encourage residents and businesses to leave. Respondents operated or proposed to operate theaters showing adult films at locations that violated the spacing restrictions.

Issue

Whether Detroit's zoning ordinances, which classify theaters as adult on the basis of the content of films they exhibit and impose special locational restrictions on them, are unconstitutional because they are vague, operate as prior restraints under the First Amendment, or deny equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

A city may constitutionally classify sexually explicit but protected motion pictures differently from other motion pictures for zoning purposes and impose special locational restrictions on adult theaters when the regulation merely limits where such films may be exhibited, does not significantly deter protected expression or restrict market access, and is supported by the city's legitimate interest in preserving the character and quality of its neighborhoods. A litigant whose own conduct clearly falls within the ordinance may not assert a facial vagueness challenge unless any deterrent effect on legitimate expression is both real and substantial and the ordinance is not readily subject to a narrowing construction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Cleveland adopts a zoning ordinance providing that any theater that regularly exhibits films emphasizing specified sexual conduct may not operate within 800 feet of two other listed regulated businesses. The city record shows dozens of available sites remain across the city, and adult-film distributors continue to sell to multiple theaters there.

If an affected theater owner argues the ordinance is an unconstitutional prior restraint because it singles out protected films for special zoning treatment, what is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority held that a city may impose special locational restrictions on adult theaters when the regulation limits place rather than suppressing the speech itself, and where there is no showing that distributors or viewers are denied meaningful access to the market. The key is that the ordinance does not significantly curtail the availability of protected expression, but instead addresses land-use concerns. (Derived from Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976).)