475 U.S. 41, 106 S. Ct. 925, 89 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1986)
In May 1980, the Mayor of Renton, Washington, a city of approximately 32,000 people located just south of Seattle, suggested to the City Council that it consider zoning legislation dealing with adult entertainment uses, as no such uses existed in the city at that time.1 The Council referred the matter to the Planning and Development Committee, which held public hearings, reviewed the experiences of Seattle and other cities, and received a report from the City Attorney's Office.2 The Council adopted Resolution No. 2368, which imposed a moratorium on the licensing of any business whose primary purpose was the selling, renting, or showing of sexually explicit materials.3
In April 1981, acting on the Committee's recommendation, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 3526.4 The ordinance prohibited any adult motion picture theater from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, or park, and within one mile of any school.5 It defined an adult motion picture theater as an enclosed building used for presenting motion picture films, video cassettes, cable television, or other visual media distinguished by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or relating to specified sexual activities or anatomical areas.6 While the federal action was pending, the City Council amended the ordinance in several respects, adding a statement of reasons for its enactment and reducing the minimum distance from any school to 1,000 feet.7
In early 1982, Playtime Theatres, Inc., and Sea-First Properties, Inc., acquired two existing theaters in downtown Renton, with the intention of using them to exhibit feature-length adult films.8 The theaters were located within the area proscribed by the ordinance.9 At about the same time, the respondents filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.10 They sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and a permanent injunction against its enforcement.11
The District Court adopted a magistrate's recommendation and entered a preliminary injunction, after which respondents began showing adult films at their two theaters.12 The parties then agreed to submit the case for a final decision on whether a permanent injunction should issue on the basis of the record as already developed.13 The District Court vacated the preliminary injunction, denied the requested permanent injunction, and entered summary judgment in favor of Renton.14 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.15 The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for reconsideration of Renton's asserted interests.16 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and reviewed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.17
Whether the Renton zoning ordinance regulating adult motion picture theaters is properly analyzed as a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation?18
Regulations enacted for the purpose of restraining speech on the basis of its content presumptively violate the First Amendment.19 Content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations are acceptable so long as they are designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication.20 An ordinance aimed not at the content of films but at the secondary effects of adult theaters on the surrounding community qualifies as content-neutral when the predominate concerns are with those effects rather than suppression of expression.21
Yes. The Renton ordinance is aimed not at the content of the films shown at adult motion picture theatres but rather at the secondary effects of such theaters on the surrounding community.22 The District Court found that the City Council's predominate concerns were with the secondary effects of adult theaters and not with the content of adult films themselves.23 The ordinance by its terms is designed to prevent crime, protect the 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, not to suppress the expression of unpopular views.24
As Justice Powell observed in a related case, if the city had been concerned with restricting the message purveyed by adult theaters, it would have tried to close them or restrict their number.25 The city would not have circumscribed their choice as to location.26 The ordinance is therefore completely consistent with the definition of content-neutral speech regulations as those justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.27
The Renton zoning ordinance is properly analyzed as a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation because its predominate purpose targets secondary effects rather than the content of protected expression.28
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan dissented on this issue and maintained that the ordinance discriminates on its face against adult motion picture theaters based on content.29 The ordinance imposes special restrictions on adult motion picture theaters on the basis of content.30 The selective treatment strongly suggests that Renton was interested not in controlling the secondary effects associated with adult businesses but in discriminating against adult theaters based on the content of the films they exhibit.31
Because the ordinance imposes special restrictions on adult motion picture theaters on the basis of content, it cannot be analyzed under standards applied to content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions.32
Whether a city enacting such an ordinance may rely on studies and experiences from other cities without conducting its own independent research into local secondary effects?33
A city is entitled to rely on the experiences of and studies produced by other cities when enacting an adult theater zoning ordinance.34 The First Amendment does not require a city to conduct new studies before enacting such an ordinance. It may rely on evidence generated by other cities so long as the evidence is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that the city addresses.35
Yes. Renton relied heavily on the experience of and studies produced by the city of Seattle.36 In Seattle as in Renton the adult theater zoning ordinance was aimed at preventing the secondary effects caused by the presence of even one such theater in a given neighborhood.37 The opinion of the Supreme Court of Washington in Northend Cinema which was before the Renton City Council when it enacted the ordinance described Seattle's experience with detailed findings supported by substantial evidence in the record.38
Renton was entitled to rely on the experiences of Seattle and other cities and in particular on the detailed findings summarized in the Washington Supreme Court's Northend Cinema opinion.39 The First Amendment does not require a city to conduct new studies.40 It does not require production of evidence independent of that already generated by other cities.41 This is permitted so long as the evidence relied upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem addressed.42
A city may rely on studies and experiences from other cities without conducting its own independent research into local secondary effects when the evidence is reasonably believed to be relevant.43
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan dissented and argued that even assuming Renton was concerned with the same problems as Seattle and Detroit, it never actually reviewed any of the studies conducted by those cities.44 Renton had no basis for determining if any of the findings made by these cities were relevant to Renton's problems or needs.45 Since Renton ultimately adopted zoning regulations different from either Detroit or Seattle, these studies provide no basis for assessing the effectiveness of the particular restrictions adopted under the ordinance.46
Renton cannot merely rely on the general experiences of Seattle or Detroit, for it must justify its ordinance in the context of Renton's problems, not Seattle's or Detroit's problems.47
Whether the ordinance leaves open reasonable alternative avenues of communication for adult theaters?48
The First Amendment requires only that a city refrain from effectively denying respondents a reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult theater within the city.49 The inquiry for First Amendment purposes is not concerned with economic impact and the government need not ensure that adult theaters will be able to obtain sites at bargain prices.50
Yes. The ordinance leaves some 520 acres or more than five percent of the entire land area of Renton open to use as adult theater sites.51 The District Court found that the 520 acres of land consists of ample accessible real estate. The Court of Appeals did not dispute this finding. The land includes acreage in all stages of development from raw land to developed industrial warehouse office and shopping space. This space is criss-crossed by freeways highways and roads.52 That respondents must fend for themselves in the real estate market on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees does not give rise to a First Amendment violation.53
The First Amendment requires only that Renton refrain from effectively denying respondents a reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult theater within the city and the ordinance before the Court easily meets this requirement.54
The ordinance leaves open reasonable alternative avenues of communication because it provides ample accessible land constituting more than five percent of the city's area for adult theater sites.55
Whether the ordinance is invalid because it regulates only adult motion picture theaters and not other adult businesses that may produce similar secondary effects?56
An ordinance is not invalid as underinclusive when there is no evidence that at the time of enactment any other adult business was located in or contemplating moving into the city.57 A city may address the potential problems created by one particular kind of adult business without addressing all at once. The presumption of statutory validity carries force unless the classification turns on the subject matter of expression in a manner that singles out disfavored speech.58
No. There is no evidence that at the time the Renton ordinance was enacted any other adult business was located in or was contemplating moving into Renton.59 In fact Resolution No. 2368 enacted in October 1980 states that the City of Renton does not at the present time have any business whose primary purpose is the sale rental or showing of sexually explicit materials.60 That Renton chose first to address the potential problems created by one particular kind of adult business in no way suggests that the city has singled out adult theaters for discriminatory treatment.61 The city simply has no basis on this record for assuming that Renton will not, in the future, amend its ordinance to include other kinds of adult businesses that have been shown to produce the same kinds of secondary effects as adult theaters.62
The ordinance is not invalid as underinclusive because the city may address one category of adult business first when no other such businesses existed or were planned at enactment.63
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan dissented and contended that the ordinance's underinclusiveness is cogent evidence that it was aimed at the content of the films shown in adult movie theaters.64 The city has not justified treating adult movie theaters differently from other adult entertainment businesses.65 Because of the First Amendment interests at stake, the one-step-at-a-time analysis is wholly inappropriate when a classification turns on the subject matter of expression.66
Above all else the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.67