City of Erie v. Pap’s A. M., Tdba “kandyland” — Souter, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Summary

Justice Souter joined the Court's analytical framework and agreed that the regulation should be evaluated under the O'Brien standards because Erie asserted an interest in combating secondary effects unrelated to suppressing expression. He would nevertheless vacate the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision and remand because the record lacked evidence connecting the asserted harms to nude dancing and showing that requiring pasties and G-strings would materially alleviate them. Justice Stevens, dissenting, would have invalidated the ordinance as a total ban on protected expression, while Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment, would have dismissed the case as moot and otherwise upheld the ordinance under a general-conduct rationale.