Walker v. Ohio
Headline: Obscenity ruling reversed: Court overturns Ohio court’s judgment on sexual materials, applies Redrup precedent and limits states’ ability to uphold that obscenity finding.
Holding: The Court reversed the Ohio Supreme Court’s judgment, applying the Court’s Redrup decision and rejecting the state court’s finding that the materials were obscene under Ohio law.
- Voids the Ohio court’s obscenity judgment for these materials.
- Restricts states’ ability to uphold similar obscenity findings under Redrup.
- Shows the Court will summarily reverse some state obscenity rulings.
Summary
Background
A challenge arose when a trial court in Ohio found certain sexual materials to be obscene under an Ohio law. The Ohio appellate courts left that judgment in place, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court under the caption Walker v. Ohio.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the Ohio courts correctly concluded the materials were obscene under the State’s statute. In a brief per curiam decision, the Court reversed the Ohio Supreme Court and cited the earlier Redrup decision. The per curiam reversal rejected the state court’s judgment that the materials were obscene as described in the trial record.
Real world impact
As a result of this reversal, the Ohio judgment that these specific materials were obscene does not stand. The decision applies the Court’s Redrup approach and therefore limits a state court’s ability to sustain a conviction based on the findings the trial court had made. The disposition was a summary one, which a dissent criticized, so the outcome reflects the Court’s immediate action rather than a lengthy merits opinion and could be revisited in later litigation.
Dissents or concurrances
Chief Justice Burger dissented, arguing the trial court had properly applied established obscenity standards: community offensiveness, prurient appeal, and lack of redeeming social value. He warned against the Court acting as a national censorship board. Justice Harlan would have left the state judgment undisturbed. Justices Marshall and Blackmun did not take part in the decision.
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?