## Facts

- Southeastern Promotions, Ltd., a theatrical promoter, sought to present the rock musical *Hair* at the Tivoli Theater in Chattanooga, Tennessee, a privately owned venue leased and operated by the city as a municipal facility.
- A municipal board responsible for managing the city auditorium and city-leased theater denied the application based on outside reports and its view that the production was not in the community’s “best interest.”
- The board’s decision was based on the musical’s content, including reports of obscenities and nudity.
- Southeastern sought injunctive relief in federal court to compel access to the venue.
- At the preliminary-injunction stage, the district court denied relief without reviewing the merits, finding no irreparable injury.
- At the permanent-injunction stage, after a multi-day evidentiary hearing focused on the show’s content, the district court found “obscene conduct” and denied relief.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the production was obscene and thus unprotected.

## Issues

1. Whether the city’s content-based denial of access to a municipal performance venue constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether a licensing/permission system for expressive use of a public facility must include the procedural safeguards required for prior restraints.
3. Whether the lower courts could uphold the denial by relying on an obscenity determination despite the absence of constitutionally required procedures.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held that the board’s content-based denial of the municipal theater was a prior restraint.
- The Court held the restraint was unconstitutional because the city’s scheme lacked the procedural safeguards required by *Freedman v. Maryland*.
- The Court did not decide whether *Hair* was obscene; the reversal rested on the absence of required procedures for imposing a prior restraint.

## Legal Principles

- A government decision that blocks expression before it occurs, based on officials’ assessment of content, is a prior restraint subject to strict procedural scrutiny.
- A prior restraint is constitutionally permissible only with safeguards designed to prevent censorship abuses, including:
  - the government bears the burden to initiate judicial proceedings and prove the speech is unprotected;
  - any restraint pending judicial review must be limited to a specified brief period to preserve the status quo;
  - prompt judicial review and a prompt final judicial determination must be assured.
- When a government makes a performance venue available for expressive activity, it may not deny access on content-based grounds through standardless or open-ended discretion.
- Post hoc litigation delays that effectively prevent a time-sensitive performance can function as a continuing restraint when no prompt review is guaranteed.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that Chattanooga’s content-based denial of a city-leased theater for *Hair* was an unconstitutional prior restraint because it lacked the procedural safeguards required for censorship systems, and it reversed without resolving the show’s obscenity status.


Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975)