Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
CityofRenton
v.PlaytimeTheatres,Inc.,
475U.S.41,106S.Ct.925(1986)
JusticeREHNqUISTdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.
Thiscaseinvolvesaconstitutionalchallengetoazoningordinance,
enactedbyappellantcityofRenton,Washington,thatprohibits
adultmotionpicturetheatersfromlocatingwithin1,000feetof
anyresidentialzone,single-ormultiple-familydwelling,church,
park,orschool.Appellees,PlaytimeTheatres,Inc.,andSea-First
Properties,Inc.,filedanactionintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor
theWesternDistrictofWashingtonseekingadeclaratoryjudgment
thattheRentonordinanceviolatedtheFirstandFourteenth
Amendments,andapermanentinjunctionagainstitsenforcement.
TheDistrictCourtruledinfavorofRentonanddeniedthepermanent
injunction,buttheCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitreversed
andremandedforreconsideration.Wenotedprobablejurisdiction,
andnowreversethejudgmentoftheNinthCircuit.
InMay1980,theMayorofRenton,acityofapproximately32,000
peoplelocatedjustsouthofSeattle,suggestedtotheRenton
CityCouncilthatitconsidertheadvisabilityofenactingzoning
legislationdealingwithadultentertainmentuses.Nosuchuses
existedinthecityatthattime.UpontheMayor’ssuggestion,
theCityCouncilreferredthemattertothecity’sPlanningand
DevelopmentCommittee.TheCommitteeheldpublichearings,
reviewedtheexperiencesofSeattleandothercities,andreceived
areportfromtheCityAttorney’sOfficeadvisingastodevelopments
inothercities.TheCityCouncil,meanwhile,adoptedResolution
No.2368,whichimposedamoratoriumonthelicensingofKany
businesswhichhasasitsprimarypurposetheselling,rentingor
showingofsexuallyexplicitmaterials.”Theresolutioncontained
aclauseexplainingthatsuchbusinessesKwouldhaveasevere
impactuponsurroundingbusinessesandresidences.”
InApril,1981,actingonthebasisofthePlanningandDevelopment
Committee’srecommendation,theCityCouncilenactedOrdinance
No.3626.TheordinanceprohibitedanyKadultmotionpicture
theater”fromlocatingwithin1,000feetofanyresidentialzone,
54
FreeSpeechMethodology