D enacted an 'adult business' ordinance that requires an 'adult bookstore, adult novelty store or adult video store' to have an 'adult business license.' It requires an applicant to provide certain basic information about the business; it insists upon compliance with local 'adult business' (and other) zoning rules; it lists eight specific circumstances the presence of which requires the city to deny a license; and it sets forth time limits (typically amounting to about 40 days) within which city officials must reach a final licensing decision. P opened a store that sells 'adult books' in a place not zoned for adult businesses. Instead of applying for an adult business license, P brought this lawsuit attacking D's ordinance as unconstitutional on its face. The Federal District Court rejected P's claims. The Tenth Circuit accepted two of them. It held that the law 'does not assure that [the city's] license decisions will be given expedited [judicial] review'; hence it does not assure the 'prompt final judicial decision' that the Constitution demands. It also held unconstitutional another ordinance provision (not now before us) on the ground that it threatened lengthy administrative delay--a problem that the city believes it has cured by amending the ordinance. D appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in light of lower court uncertainty on this issue. D claims that they have provided prompt access to the courts and that the First Amendment did not require assurance of a 'prompt judicial determination' of the applicant's legal claim. Even so, Colorado law satisfies any 'prompt judicial determination' requirement.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.