# City of Littleton v. Z. J. Gifts D-4, L. L. C.

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 7, 2004 · 541 U.S. 774

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434628

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF LITTLETON, COLORADO v. Z. J. GIFTS D-4, L. L. C., Dba CHRISTAL’S
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 7, 2004
- **Citations:** 541 U.S. 774; 124 S. Ct. 2219; 159 L. Ed. 2d 84; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4026
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Souter
- **Judges:** Breyer, Stevens, Souter, Scalia, Kennedy
- **Cited by:** 170 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434628

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "considerations of ripeness are sufficiently important that we are required to raise the issue sua sponte even though the parties do not"
- finding that “Colorado’s ordinary ‘judicial review’ rules offer adequate assurance, not only that access to the courts can be promptly obtained, but also that a judicial decision will be promptly forthcoming”
- holding that it was proper to count grandfathered sites when determining whether location restrictions in an ordinance left open reasonable alternative avenues of expression for adult businesses
- explaining that ordinary judicial review of a licensing decision was sufficient where the ordinance was content neutral and only conditioned operation on neutral, nondiscriminatory criteria

## Opinion text

Justice Souter,
with whom Justice Kennedy joins,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join the Court’s opinion, except for Part II-B. I agree that this scheme is unlike full-blown censorship, ante, at 782-784, so that the ordinance does not need a strict timetable of *787 the kind required by Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965), to survive a facial challenge. I write separately to emphasize that the state procedures that make a prompt judicial determination possible need to align with a state judicial practice that provides a prompt disposition in the state courts. The emphasis matters, because although Littleton’s ordinance is not as suspect as censorship, neither is it as innocuous as common zoning. It is a licensing scheme triggered by the content of expressive materials to be sold. See Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U. S. 425, 448 (2002) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (“These ordinances are content based, and we should call them so”); id., at 455-457 (Souter, J., dissenting). Because the sellers may be unpopular with local authorities, there is a risk of delay in the licensing and review process. If there is evidence of foot dragging, immediate judicial intervention will be required, and judicial oversight or review at any stage of the proceedings must be expeditious.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434628. Public record. Not legal advice.