United States v. Reidel
Headline: Mail-order obscene material: Court upholds federal ban on using the mails for commercial distribution to consenting adults, reversing the lower court and allowing prosecutions for selling obscenity by mail.
Holding: The Court held that the federal statute may constitutionally prohibit using the mails to distribute obscene material, allowing enforcement against those who mail obscene works even when recipients are adults who requested them.
- Allows federal prosecutions for mailing obscene materials to adults.
- Makes mail-order sellers of explicit booklets more legally vulnerable.
- Leaves private possession rights unchanged but not distribution protections.
Summary
Background
The dispute is between the United States and Norman Reidel, a man who sold a small illustrated booklet called The True Facts About Imported Pornography. Reidel was indicted for mailing three copies; one went to a postal inspector over 21 who answered an ad, and two others were found at his business and bore “undelivered” marks. The trial judge dismissed the indictment, treating the claimed deliveries to adults as constitutionally protected, and the Government appealed.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether the federal statute banning use of the mails for obscene matter could be applied when the recipient is a willing adult. Relying on its prior decision in Roth that obscenity is not protected speech, the Court held that distribution by mail remains outside First Amendment protection. The Court explained that the private right to possess obscene material in the home (recognized in Stanley) does not create a right to sell or mail it. The result: the dismissal was reversed and the federal ban may be enforced against mail-order distribution of obscene materials.
Real world impact
The decision means people who sell or mail allegedly obscene materials can be prosecuted even when buyers say they are adults and request the items. The Court did not decide whether these particular booklets are obscene on the merits, so a later trial or ruling could still determine that fact. The ruling leaves regulation of distribution by legislatures and prosecutions by the Government intact.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices wrote separately: Justice Harlan agreed the federal ban may reach commercial mailings; Justice Marshall concurred in the judgment but urged stronger safeguards to prevent minors from receiving such material and noted the record was sparse.
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?