AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Guild Cinema, an art-house movie theater in Albuquerque, was prosecuted under the city's zoning regulations for showing a pornographic film during a weekend festival. The city's ordinance allows adult films to be shown only in specified zones, which does not include the district where the Guild is located. The Guild argues that this enforcement violates its free-speech rights, claiming the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and unfairly applied in this instance. Both parties stipulated that the showing of the film did not cause negative secondary effects in the neighborhood (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan court: The Guild was convicted and fined $500 for operating as an adult amusement establishment outside of a zoned area.
• District court: Affirmed the metropolitan court's findings and conviction upon the Guild's appeal (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• City of Albuquerque: Argued that the ordinance is not vague and was constitutionally applied to the Guild's screening of an adult film. The city maintains that the ordinance serves to prevent negative secondary effects associated with adult amusement establishments (paras 4, 10-11).
• Pangaea Cinema LLC d/b/a Guild Cinema: Contended that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and that its application in this case violates the theater's free-speech rights. The Guild also argued that the ordinance should not apply to the screening of a single adult film and that no negative secondary effects resulted from the film showing (paras 4, 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the city's zoning ordinance is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the Guild's screening of a single adult film.
• Whether the enforcement of the ordinance against the Guild for showing one adult film violates the theater's free-speech rights (paras 4, 10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the conviction and fine imposed on the Guild Cinema (para 44).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo with Judge Michael E. Vigil concurring and Judge Jonathan B. Sutin dissenting, found that the ordinance is not vague and was constitutionally applied to the Guild. The majority reasoned that the ordinance's language is clear in its application to the Guild's conduct and that the city's interest in regulating the location of adult films to prevent negative secondary effects justifies the ordinance's application in this case. The Court also determined that the ordinance leaves open ample alternative channels for communication, thus not violating the Guild's free-speech rights. Judge Sutin's dissent argued that the Guild should not be considered an adult amusement establishment based on a single showing of an adult film and that the ordinance, as applied, fails to meet constitutional scrutiny (paras 5-9, 13-16, 33-42, 47-70).