Justices Reject Restrictions on Sex-Oriented Businesses

WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court today struck down a major portion of a Dallas ordinance that imposed strict licensing and zoning requirements on sexually oriented businesses.

The court, in a complex opinion that various justices joined and dissented from, also upheld portions of the ordinance.

In a ruling by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court held that the licensing portion of the law, which required adult theaters and bookstores to have a license and inspections, “largely targets businesses purveying sexually explicit speech which the city concedes for the purposes of these cases are protected by the First Amendment.”

She also wrote that the city’s procedure allows “indefinite postponement of the issuance of a license.”

“The Dallas scheme . . . fails to provide an avenue for prompt judicial review so as to minimize suppression of the speech in the event of a license denial. We therefore hold that the failure to provide these essential safeguards renders the ordinance’s licensing requirement unconstitutional insofar as it is enforced against those businesses engaged in First Amendment activity.”

O’Connor was joined in that portion of the ruling by Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry A. Blackmun, wrote separately to join that portion of the ruling.

In another portion of the opinion, O’Connor, supported by the entire court, upheld a portion of the ordinance that barred motel owners from renting rooms for less than 10 hours.

O’Connor noted that the motel owners argue the ordinance places an unconstitutional burden on the right to freedom of association.

“Any ‘personal bonds’ that are formed from the use of a motel room for less than 10 hours are not those that have ‘played a critical role in the culture and traditions of the nation by cultivating and transmitting shared ideals and beliefs.’ ”

In another decision released today, the high court ruled that colleges and universities enjoy no special privilege to withhold confidential data from faculty members who claim they illegally were denied tenure. The court unanimously rejected University of Pennsylvania arguments that “academic freedom” confers a privilege of confidentiality for peer review records sought by a faculty member who sued when denied tenure.