Fort v. City of Miami
Headline: Denies review, leaving Miami man’s conviction for selling six fiberglass “obscene” statues intact, despite a Justice calling the local ordinance facially unconstitutional for relying only on prurient-interest test.
Holding: The Court denied review, leaving the Florida conviction in place while a Justice’s dissent argued the ordinance was facially unconstitutional.
- Leaves the seller’s conviction intact while appeals continue.
- Allows the local obscene-material ordinance to remain enforced in this case.
- Flags a Justice’s view that the statute is constitutionally insufficient.
Summary
Background
A Miami man created six fiberglass statues and offered them for sale in his backyard. Two police officers seized the statues and arrested him under a local ordinance that forbids knowingly possessing obscene figures for sale. He was convicted, the conviction was affirmed by a Florida appeals court, and he sought review in the Supreme Court after being unable to obtain further state-court review.
Reasoning
The Court declined to hear the case and denied the petition for review. The dissenting opinion by Justice Stewart, joined by two other Justices, says the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face because it adopts a Florida test that treats material as obscene if it merely "appeals to prurient interest." The dissent explains that relying solely on that prurient-interest test is legally insufficient and would have granted review and reversed the conviction.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court denied review, the Florida conviction and the local ordinance remain in effect for this case. The decision is not a ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance nationwide; the legal question could be decided differently in a future case. Artists, sellers, and local authorities should understand that this outcome leaves enforcement and challenges to such ordinances to the lower courts and state procedures for now.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stewart’s dissent is central: he says the statute is facially invalid for using only the prurient-interest standard and would have reversed the conviction.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?