Zoning Curbs on Adult Video Parlors Upheld

Local officials can bar two X-rated businesses from operating at a single location, the Supreme Court said Monday in a case brought by the city of Los Angeles.

On a 5-4 vote, the justices said that because a concentration of adult businesses can bring crime and blight to a neighborhood, cities can use their zoning power to allow only one such business in a particular location.

The ruling is a victory, but not a final one, for prosecutors in Los Angeles.

Since 1995, they have sought to shut down adult businesses in Hollywood and elsewhere that sell X-rated videotapes and also allow customers to view these tapes for a fee.

City inspectors said these dual services amount to two businesses, not one, and therefore violate the zoning ordinance that requires a 1,000-foot separation between X-rated operations.

In 1976, the Supreme Court first gave city officials approval to use zoning power to break up red-light districts in major cities.

The case decided Monday did not appear to challenge the basic principles set in 1976. Instead it called on the court to clarify its meaning.

But the closely divided opinion suggested that many of the justices are still uneasy about the argument that this use of zoning power is really about crime, not the sexual nature of the businesses.

Monday’s ruling overturned a decision of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said city officials had no evidence that the two X-rated businesses in a single location brought more crime to the area.

Writing for the court in City of Los Angeles vs. Alameda Books and Highland Books, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said common sense alone was enough to justify the city’s regulation. Many studies, including one in Hollywood in 1977, showed that street crime is highest in areas where adult businesses were concentrated, she said.

City officials acted reasonably when they refused to “allow an adult-oriented department store to replace a strip of adult establishments,” she said.

But only four justices joined her opinion. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy agreed only in part, so the issue will probably have to be resolved in a trial in Los Angeles. The attorneys challenging the law can try to show that there is no evidence that the video parlor brings more crime to the area.

“It is a narrow decision,” said Deputy Los Angeles City Atty. Michael L. Klekner, who defended the zoning ordinance. “The good news is that we won in the Supreme Court. The bad news is that we have to go to trial now.”

John Weston, the lawyer who represented the bookstores, said he is confident of winning in a trial. “We believe we should prevail. The evidence will not support the city’s theory that this combination [of adult businesses] in any way causes greater secondary effects.”

Siding with the city along with O’Connor were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Kennedy concurred in the result.

The four dissenters said the ordinance amounts to discrimination against a type of expression, not a true regulation of crime.