City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.
2002 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case on the controversial issue of adult bookstore zoning in the city of Los Angeles. Zoning laws dictated that no adult bookstores could be within five hundred feet of a public park, or religious establishment, or within 1000 feet of another adult establishment. However, Alameda Books, Inc. and Highland Books, Inc. were two adult stores that operated under one roof. They sued Los Angeles, stating the ordinance violated the First Amendment. The district court concurred with the stores, stating that the 1977 study stating there was a higher crime rate in areas with adult stores, which the law was based upon, did not support a reasonable belief that multiple-use adult establishments produce the secondary effects the city asserted as content-neutral justifications for its restrictions on adult stores. The Court of Appeals upheld this verdict, and found that even if the ordinance were content neutral, the city failed to present evidence upon which it could reasonably rely to demonstrate that its regulation of multiple-use establishments was designed to serve its substantial interest in reducing crime. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. This reversed the decision of the lower court. This case was argued on December 4, 2001; certiorari was granted on March 5, 2001.[1] "City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 00-799, didn't involve the kind of adult material that can be regulated by the government, but rather the extent to which cities can ban "one-stop shopping" sex-related businesses."[2]
Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. | |
---|---|
Argued December 4, 2001 Decided May 13, 2002 | |
Full case name | City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., et al. |
Citations | 535 U.S. 425 (more) 122 S. Ct. 1728; 152 L. Ed. 2d 670; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3424; 70 U.S.L.W. 4369; 30 Media L. Rep. 1769; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4067; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 5167; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 267 |
Holding | |
Los Angeles may reasonably rely on its 1977 study to demonstrate that its present ban on multiple use adult establishments serves its interest in reducing crime. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas |
Concurrence | Scalia |
Concurrence | Kennedy (in judgment) |
Dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg; Breyer (Part II) |