The U.S. Supreme Court case City of Erie, et al. v. Pap's A.M., TDBA 'Kandyland', 1999 revolved around a dispute over the constitutionality of an ordinance in Erie, Pennsylvania that banned public nudity and was used to prohibit nude dancing at adult entertainment establishments like Kandyland, owned by Pap's A.M.. The court had to decide whether this ban violated the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. In a split decision (5-4), the court ruled in favor of the city stating that while nude dancing is considered expressive conduct within the outer perimeters of First Amendment protection, it falls only within its boundary and not at its core; hence can be regulated without violating constitutional rights. The majority opinion held that government has a substantial interest in protecting societal order and morality which justified such regulations on public nudity even if they have some incidental effect on expressive activity.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Erie, et al. v. Pap's A.M., TDBA 'Kandyland', Justice Scalia argued that the majority had failed to apply a clear standard in determining whether or not nude dancing was protected by the First Amendment. He contended that this lack of clarity would lead to confusion and inconsistency in future cases involving similar issues. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that banning public nudity did not violate free speech rights because it served a substantial government interest in preventing harmful secondary effects associated with adult entertainment establishments such as increased crime rates and decreased property values. Instead, he believed this reasoning was flawed because it allowed governments to suppress expression based on its content under the guise of regulating conduct.