| Litigants: | Young v. American Mini Theatres |
| Arguedate: | March 24 |
| Argueyear: | 1976 |
| Decidedate: | June 24 |
| Decideyear: | 1976 |
| Fullname: | Young, Mayor of Detroit, et al. v. American Mini Theatres, Incorporated, et al. |
| Usvol: | 427 |
| Uspage: | 50 |
| Parallelcitations: | 96 S. Ct. 2440; 49 L. Ed. 2d 310; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 3; 1 Media L. Rep. 1151 |
| Holding: | It is constitutional for a city to enact a zoning rule that treats ordinary cinemas differently from adult cinemas. |
| Majority: | Stevens (Parts I, II) |
| Joinmajority: | Burger, White, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Plurality: | Stevens (Part III) |
| Joinplurality: | Burger, White, Rehnquist |
| Concurrence: | Powell |
| Dissent: | Stewart |
| Joindissent: | Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Dissent2: | Blackmun |
| Joindissent2: | Brennan, Stewart, Marshall |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const. amend. I |
Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a city ordinance of Detroit, Michigan requiring dispersal of adult businesses throughout the city.
Justice Stevens (writing for the plurality) reasoned that the speech involved here is of lower value, and the city also has a compelling interest in protecting quality of life.
Justice Powell (concurring) disagreed with Stevens' "lower value speech" argument (thus limiting Part III of the opinion to a plurality), but wrote that this is only a place restriction with a limited effect on speech.