Vishara Video, Inc., et al. v. City of New York, New York, et al.

Where there have been substantial changes in the circumstances since a municipality enacted an ordinance under its police powers that impacts free expression, and the facts that justified the ordinance have ceased to exist, in evaluating a constitutional challenge brought under the First Amendment, should courts consider whether the ordinance still serves a substantial governmental interest when it is enforced, or is an assessment of the need for the ordinance limited solely to consideration of the governmental interest at the time the ordinance is enacted?

Where the state courts with jurisdiction over the facts have authoritatively and affirmatively held that a type of business that offers adult material in only a portion of its establishment does not give rise to negative secondary effects, and the record as a whole shows that zoning restrictions on those types of businesses constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of expression, is the challenged municipal zoning ordinance unconstitutional?