In the 1981 case of California ex rel. Cooper, City Attorney of Santa Ana, California v. Mitchell Brothers' Santa Ana Theater et al., the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a city ordinance that regulated adult theaters violated First Amendment rights to free speech and expression. The theater owners argued that their films were protected by the Constitution and could not be subject to local regulation or censorship. However, the court ruled in favor of the city attorney, stating that while adult films are indeed protected under free speech laws, they can still be subjected to zoning regulations designed for public welfare purposes such as preventing crime or maintaining property values in a community. This decision affirmed cities' right to regulate businesses through zoning ordinances without infringing on constitutional freedoms.

In the dissenting opinion for California ex rel. Cooper, City Attorney of Santa Ana, California v. Mitchell Brothers' Santa Ana Theater et al., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to strike down a local ordinance that prohibited adult theaters from operating within 500 feet of residential areas or within 1,000 feet of schools and churches. He argued that this was not an issue about freedom of speech but rather one concerning zoning laws which are traditionally under state jurisdiction. He believed it was inappropriate for federal courts to interfere in such matters unless there is clear evidence that constitutional rights have been violated - something he did not believe had occurred in this case. Furthermore, he felt the majority failed to consider adequately how allowing adult theaters near homes and schools could negatively impact communities by contributing to crime rates and lowering property values.