Bloss v. Dykema

Background

This dispute arose in Michigan over whether certain materials, including a movie, could be treated by state courts in a way that allowed punishment. The Supreme Court granted review of the Michigan Court of Appeals’ judgment and considered whether earlier Supreme Court guidance applied to these materials.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the challenged materials should receive the same treatment the Court had described in Redrup v. New York. In a short per curiam decision the Court granted certiorari and reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals, citing Redrup. The opinion notes that the Chief Justice and one Justice preferred to deny review, and that one Justice did not participate. Justice Harlan dissented and would have affirmed the state court.

Real world impact

As a result of the reversal, the Michigan judgment against the materials was overturned and the Court applied its Redrup guidance to this situation. That outcome reduces the Michigan court’s ability to uphold punishment for these specific materials and signals that similar state prosecutions may face the same limitation. Because this decision is a short, precedent-based reversal, broader and final rules on all related questions may be left for future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan wrote a dissent saying he would have affirmed. He relied on his prior views and said these materials did not reach the kind of borderline movie that, in his view, should be protected from Redrup treatment.