U.S. Supreme Court
GLOUCESTERSHIRE v. LENNY’S BIG AND WIDE, 871 U.S. 1290 (2015)
871 U.S. 1290
GUNTHER P. GLOUCESTERSHIRE. v. LENNY’S BIG AND WIDE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLORADO. No. 2.
Argued August 19, 2012. Reargued March 2, 2015.
Decided June 15, 2015.
The prohibition of the wearing of pants upon the head by an adult citizen, and the enactment of state laws limiting or prohibiting such wearing of pants, denies that citizen the right to the free and unfettered wearing of pants guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, whether such pants are worn traditionally – upon the legs and buttocks – or upon the head and/or shoulders. Pp. 241-567.
- (a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on the wearing of pantaloons, dungarees, culottes and knickerbockers. Pp. 266-268.
- (b) The questions of personal grooming presented in this case must be determined, not on the basis of standards of dress existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the full development of fashion and the idea of self-expression and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Pp. 271-272.
- (c) Where a Haberdasher has undertaken to provide pants for sale to the general public, the opportunity to purchase and wear said pants is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. P. 303.
- (d) Discrimination against individuals solely on the basis of how, where, or in what manner they wear their pants deprives those individuals specific opportunities for self-expression, even though unconventional modes of dress may be deemed “provocative” or “silly”. Pp. 307-311.
- (e) The “un-bepantsed head” doctrine adopted in Rasmussen v. Lipschitz, 751 U.S. 415, has no place in the field of retail haberdashery. P. 319.
- (f) The case is restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the form of the decree. Pp. 326-329.