1. 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 ?

2. 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?

Whether courts should evaluate the continued constitutionality of a municipal ordinance based on current circumstances or solely on the governmental interest at the time of enactment, and whether zoning restrictions on businesses offering adult material are an unconstitutional intrusion on free expression