## Facts

- Detroit amended its zoning scheme to regulate the location of “adult” establishments through spacing requirements.
- An “adult” theater was defined by the presentation of material characterized by an emphasis on specified sexual activities or anatomical areas.
- Absent a waiver, an adult theater could not be located within 1,000 feet of any two other specified “regulated uses” or within 500 feet of a residential area.
- The city relied on planning and real-estate testimony that concentrations of adult and related businesses were associated with higher crime (including prostitution), lower property values, and neighborhood deterioration.
- Adult theater operators challenged the ordinances, asserting they burdened protected expression and were unconstitutionally vague and discriminatory.

## Issues

1. Whether the ordinances were unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause as applied to the adult theater operators.
2. Whether the ordinances imposed unconstitutional restraints on speech protected by the First Amendment by regulating theaters based on sexual content.
3. Whether treating adult theaters differently from other theaters violated the Equal Protection Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld the ordinances.
- The Court rejected the vagueness challenge as applied, emphasizing that the challengers intended to present adult fare regularly and did not show that alleged uncertainties or waiver standards affected them.
- The Court held the zoning scheme did not violate the First Amendment because it regulated location rather than suppressing the exhibition of protected films, leaving reasonable alternative avenues for communication.
- The Court held the differential treatment of adult theaters did not deny equal protection because the classification was justified by legitimate governmental interests linked to the effects of concentrated regulated uses.
- Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court on key parts; Justice Powell concurred in the judgment on a time, place, and manner rationale; four Justices dissented.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality may use zoning to control the location of adult theaters when the regulation is directed to neighborhood and crime-related consequences associated with concentrations of such businesses and does not effectively suppress protected expression.
- Content-based definitions in zoning may be permissible when used to identify businesses associated with adverse secondary effects and when the regulation operates as a place restriction rather than a ban.
- Vagueness challenges may fail where the challenged uncertainty does not affect the litigants’ conduct and where state courts can apply narrowing constructions.
- Differential zoning treatment of adult theaters does not violate equal protection when supported by legitimate governmental interests and a rational relationship between the classification and those interests.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Detroit’s dispersal zoning for adult theaters, concluding that, as applied, the ordinances were sufficiently definite and constitutionally regulated location to address asserted secondary effects without impermissibly suppressing protected speech or denying equal protection.


Young v. Am. Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976)