In November 2004, the city of San Antonio passed an ordinance prohibiting sexually explicit businesses from operating within 1,0000 feet of residential areas and educational institutions, such as schools, daycare centers, and churches. This ordinance was later amended to include a ban on "sexual devices" displayed for sale or viewing. In January 2005, the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion stating that the ordinance did not conflict with state laws regarding obscenity or pornography.
On February 8, 2005, coordinated law enforcement raids targeted adult stores selling Hustler magazine, citing violations of local obscenity ordinances. The owner of one store stated that he had been previously informed by the police that his business was legal under state law but received no prior notice of the raid. Another storeowner claimed that the raid was politically motivated due to her opposition to a bill that would have increased the age requirement for purchasing sexual materials to 21 years old.
The raids sparked media attention and lawsuits over selective enforcement and constitutional rights. Some argued that the raids were intended to stifle free speech and censor political dissent. Others criticized the use of taxpayer dollars in what they saw as a wasteful and unnecessary exercise. Proponents of the raids countered that they were necessary to protect children and families from harmful material.
In response to the controversy, some stores removed adult magazines from their shelves or stopped displaying them in public view. Hustler Magazine Inc. filed suit against San Antonio, alleging that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and arbitrary. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled in favor of the city, finding that the ordinance was content-neutral and not subject to strict scrutiny.
The Texas Adult Store Raids remain a contentious issue in Texas politics and have sparked broader discussions about the role of government in regulating obscene material. Many people believe that the raids were an abuse of power and a violation of civil liberties, while others argue that they were justified in order to protect vulnerable populations.