United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs

1971-06-14

Headline: Border import rules limited but upheld: Court construes customs obscenity law to require prompt time limits and allows seizure of obscene materials, letting government block imports while courts decide.

Holding: The Court reversed the lower court, held the customs law can be read to require 14-day and 60-day time limits, and ruled Congress may bar importation of obscene materials, allowing seizure here.

Real World Impact:

Allows customs to seize alleged obscene materials at U.S. borders.
Requires quick court action—commence within 14 days and decide within 60 days.
Pressures importers to seek fast legal challenges or face forfeiture.

Topics: obscenity and censorship, border searches and seizures, customs enforcement, free speech limits

Summary

Background

A traveler named Milton Luros returned from Europe with 37 photographs in his luggage. Customs agents seized the photos on October 24, 1969, and the Government began forfeiture proceedings on November 6. A three-judge federal court held the customs ban on obscene imports unconstitutional and ordered the photos returned, citing procedural delays and a prior case protecting private possession.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed two questions: whether the customs statute lacked the prompt court review required by prior free-expression cases, and whether a privacy right to possess obscene material at home also bars seizure at the border. The Court read time limits into the statute to avoid striking it down: forfeiture actions must begin within 14 days of seizure and the district court should decide within 60 days. Because the Government filed within 13 days here, the statute could apply. The Court also held that the privacy right recognized for possession at home does not let a traveler import obscene material free from Congress’ power to exclude contraband at the border.

Real world impact

The decision lets customs continue to seize and forfeit allegedly obscene imports, but it requires speedy court action after seizure. Importers, publishers, and travelers face faster deadlines to challenge seizures. The case was remanded so the district court can resolve whether these particular photos are obscene; the ruling did not decide that question on the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

A strong dissent argued the First Amendment bars such censorship and condemned the Court for effectively rewriting the statute. Separate concurrences agreed with imposing time limits but expressed doubts about deciding whether private importation may be seized.