Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. (1990)

Docket
90-26
Decided
1990-01-01

Summary

Question: Does a state prohibition against complete nudity in public places violate the First Amendment's freedom of expression guarantee? Conclusion: No. The Court was fractured and there was no majority opinion. Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a plurality opinion, conceded that nude dancing was a form of expressive activity. But he maintained that the public indecency statute is justified despite the incidental limitations on such expressive activity. The statute "furthers a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality." The proscription on public nudity is unrelated to the erotic message the dancers seek to convey.

View the full interactive analysis on SCOTUS Lens →