Bellanca v. New York State Liquor Authority, 54 N.Y.2d 225 (1981)
A state’s constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression can invalidate a blanket prohibition against topless dancing in establishments licensed to serve alcohol, even if the prohibition is valid under the U.S. Constitution due to the Twenty-first Amendment.
Summary
This case concerns the constitutionality of a New York law prohibiting topless dancing in establishments licensed by the State Liquor Authority. The New York Court of Appeals initially found the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the law valid under the Twenty-first Amendment. On remand, the New York Court of Appeals then considered the law’s validity under the New York State Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the law violated the state constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression because the state constitution lacks a provision analogous to the Twenty-first Amendment that would curtail the freedom of expression.
Facts
The New York State Legislature enacted subdivision 6-a of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, which prohibited topless dancing in establishments licensed by the State Liquor Authority. There were no specific legislative findings or declarations of intent supporting the law’s enactment. Prior to this law, the State Liquor Authority had a rule prohibiting topless dancing on stages less than 18 inches above floor level or within 6 feet of patrons. Bellanca, a liquor licensee, challenged the constitutionality of the new law.
Procedural History
The New York Court of Appeals initially found the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding the law constitutional under the Twenty-first Amendment in New York State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca, 452 U.S. 714 (1981). The case was remanded to the New York Court of Appeals to consider the law’s validity under the New York State Constitution.
Issue(s)
Whether the blanket prohibition against topless dancing in premises licensed by the State Liquor Authority violates the guarantee of freedom of expression under the New York State Constitution.
Holding
Yes, because the New York State Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression is not curtailed by a provision analogous to the Twenty-first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the state legislature made no findings to justify a categorical ban.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that while the Twenty-first Amendment grants states broad power to regulate alcohol sales under the U.S. Constitution, this power does not override the protections guaranteed by a state’s own constitution. The court emphasized that New York’s authority to regulate alcohol stems from its inherent police power, which is subject to the constraints of the New York State Constitution, including its guarantee of freedom of expression. Because there were no legislative findings to support a functional relationship between the blanket prohibition and the state’s police power, the court concluded that the law violated the state constitution. The court explicitly stated that “the guarantee of freedom of expression set forth in our State Constitution is of no lesser vitality than that set forth in the Federal Constitution (considered without reference to the curtailing effect of its Twenty-first Amendment).” The court distinguished this case from California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972), noting that the regulation in LaRue was more narrowly tailored and had factual findings supporting its enactment, unlike the blanket prohibition in this case. The court noted that the prior State Liquor Authority rule prohibiting topless dancing on stages less than 18 inches above floor level or within 6 feet of patrons was an example of a more tailored rule that might be constitutional. The Court emphasized that, “any policy judgment made by our Legislature must necessarily conform to the commands of our State Constitution.”