Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc.
| Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Argued April 29, 1986 Decided July 7, 1986 | |
| Full case name | Arcara, District Attorney of Erie County v. Cloud Books, Inc., DBA Village Book & News Store, et al. |
| Docket no. | 85-437 |
| Citations | 478 U.S. 697 (more) 106 S. Ct. 3172 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Denial of summary judgment affirmed, People ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 101 A.D.2d 163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984); modified to grant partial summary judgment, 65 N.Y.2d 324, 480 N.E.2d 1089 (N.Y. 1985); cert. granted, 474 U.S. 978 (1985) |
| Subsequent | People ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 553, 503 N.E.2d 492 (N.Y. 1986) |
| Holding | |
| The bookstore's closure did not violate the First Amendment as the activities for which it was closed were nonexpressive. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by White, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | O'Connor, joined by Stevens |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case about the First Amendment and whether freedom of speech was violated by shutting down a bookstore because of illicit sexual activities occurring there. The court held that the closure was aimed at nonexpressive activity and its incidental burden on speech was not subject to any First Amendment scrutiny.
In reaching its decision, the 6–3 majority identified two conditions when it would apply the First Amendment to incidental effects on speech: when the enforcement action is aimed at significantly expressive conduct, or when the law inevitably affects speech disproportionately. Neither condition was applicable to the case. This distinguished Arcara from the draft card burning case United States v. O'Brien (1968) and other precedents.