|
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
|
|
|
<case id="50940" source="Oyez API" schema="simple-legal-case-xml-v1"><name>California v. LaRue</name><docketNumber>71-36</docketNumber><term>1972</term><court><name>Burger Court (1972-1975)</name><identifier>burger4</identifier><href>https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger4</href></court><parties><firstParty role="Appellant">California, et al.</firstParty><secondParty role="Appellee">Robert LaRue, et al.</secondParty></parties><dates><date type="argued">1972-10-10</date><date type="decided">1972-12-05</date></dates><citation><volume>409</volume><page>109</page><year>1972</year><href>https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14868</href><justia_url>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/109/</justia_url></citation><jurisdiction>Appeal</jurisdiction><facts><html><p>After receiving reports of the type of sexual activity occurring on the premises of licensed liquor sellers, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control promulgated a series of regulations pertaining to the conduct on such licensed premises. The appellees, a group of holders of various liquor licenses, sought discretionary review of the new regulations. The district court held that the regulations unconstitutionally limited freedom of expression.</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>After receiving reports of the type of sexual activity occurring on the premises of licensed liquor sellers, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control promulgated a series of regulations pertaining to the conduct on such licensed premises. The appellees, a group of holders of various liquor licenses, sought discretionary review of the new regulations. The district court held that the regulations unconstitutionally limited freedom of expression.</text></facts><questions /><conclusion><html><p>No. Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the 6-3 majority. The Court held that states have the right to regulate expression that consists of “conduct or action” especially in the absence of a particular message. Since the California regulations did not prohibit all such behavior and performances but only those in certain locations that hold liquor licenses, the regulations did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.</p>
|
|
|
<p>In his concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that states have the authority to regulate where and under what conditions alcohol is sold. The exercise of that authority does not violate the constitutional rights of the proprietors and employees of alcohol-serving establishments.</p>
|
|
|
<p>Justice William O. Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that constitutional questions the case presents should not have been addressed until the regulations had been applied and the state courts had decided how strictly they should be construed. In his separate dissent, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. argued that the regulations required the owner of a nightclub to curtail First Amendment expression to obtain a liquor license. States do not have the power to impose an unconstitutional condition on the granting of a license. Justice Thurgood Marshall also wrote a separate dissent where he argued that the regulations were too broad and lacked the precision necessary to avoid violating constitutional rights. The California regulations create even stricter standards than the Supreme Court’s ruling in regards to obscenity. He argued that the state’s authority to regulate the sale of alcohol does not allow it to override the protections of the First Amendment.</p>
|
|
|
<p>"</p>
|
|
|
</html><text>No. Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the 6-3 majority. The Court held that states have the right to regulate expression that consists of “conduct or action” especially in the absence of a particular message. Since the California regulations did not prohibit all such behavior and performances but only those in certain locations that hold liquor licenses, the regulations did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
|
|
|
In his concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that states have the authority to regulate where and under what conditions alcohol is sold. The exercise of that authority does not violate the constitutional rights of the proprietors and employees of alcohol-serving establishments.
|
|
|
Justice William O. Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that constitutional questions the case presents should not have been addressed until the regulations had been applied and the state courts had decided how strictly they should be construed. In his separate dissent, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. argued that the regulations required the owner of a nightclub to curtail First Amendment expression to obtain a liquor license. States do not have the power to impose an unconstitutional condition on the granting of a license. Justice Thurgood Marshall also wrote a separate dissent where he argued that the regulations were too broad and lacked the precision necessary to avoid violating constitutional rights. The California regulations create even stricter standards than the Supreme Court’s ruling in regards to obscenity. He argued that the state’s authority to regulate the sale of alcohol does not allow it to override the protections of the First Amendment.
|
|
|
"</text></conclusion><advocates><advocate for="for appellants"><name>L. Stephen Porter</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/l_stephen_porter</href></advocate><advocate for=""><name>Harrison W. Hertzberg</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harrison_w_hertzberg</href></advocate><advocate for=""><name>Kenneth Scholtz</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/kenneth_scholtz</href></advocate></advocates><decisions><decision type="majority opinion" winning_party="California"><description /><votes majority="6" minority="3"><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="2"><justice>William O. Douglas</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglas</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="concurrence" vote="majority" seniority="4"><justice>Potter Stewart</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewart</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="6"><justice>Thurgood Marshall</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshall</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="3"><justice>William J. Brennan, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="5"><justice>Byron R. White</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_white</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="1"><justice>Warren E. Burger</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burger</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="7"><justice>Harry A. Blackmun</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmun</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="8"><justice>Lewis F. Powell, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="majority" vote="majority" seniority="9"><justice>William H. Rehnquist</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquist</justice_href></vote></votes></decision></decisions><source><href>https://api.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-36</href><raw_file>D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1972_71-36.json</raw_file></source></case> |
