Respondent city of Dallas adopted a comprehensive ordinance regulating "sexually oriented businesses," which are defined to include "adult" arcades, bookstores, video stores, cabarets, motels, and theaters, as well as escort agencies, nude model studios, and sexual encounter centers.
Among other things, the ordinance requires that such businesses be licensed and includes civil disability provisions prohibiting certain individuals from obtaining licenses. Three groups of individuals and businesses involved in the adult entertainment industry filed separate suits challenging the ordinance on numerous grounds and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
The District Court upheld the bulk of the ordinance but struck down several subsections, and the city subsequently amended the ordinance in conformity with the court's judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the ordinance's licensing scheme did not violate the First Amendment despite its failure to provide the procedural safeguards set forth in Freedman v.
Maryland, U. Held: The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, and the cases are remanded. No petitioner has shown standing to challenge 1 the ordinance's provision which prohibits the licensing of an applicant who has resided with an individual whose license application has been denied or revoked, or 2 the civil disability provisions, which disable for specified periods those who have been convicted of certain enumerated crimes, as well as those whose spouses have been so convicted.
The record does not reveal that any petitioner was living with an individual whose application was denied or whose license was revoked. Moreover, although the record reveals one individual who potentially could be disabled under the spousal conviction provision, that person is not herself a license applicant or a party to this action.
