Judy Procaccini v. Clarence Jones

Background

A group of people whose motion picture films were seized under Texas law asked a Texas trial court to stop pending and future prosecutions under the state’s obscenity statute. They challenged a related Texas rule that lets a person whose property is seized ask a magistrate for a quick hearing to contest obscenity, and they also challenged the State’s definition of “obscene.” Texas courts denied relief and the State’s high court refused further review, and the case reached the United States Supreme Court only as an appeal from that denial.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as presenting no substantial federal question, so it did not decide the constitutional claims on the merits. A dissenting group of Justices disagreed. Justice Brennan (joined by two colleagues) argued that, except for sales to minors or exposure to unwilling adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments bar governments from completely suppressing sexually oriented material and that the Texas wording of “obscene” is too broad and therefore invalid on its face. Justice Douglas expressed a similar view and would have sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with his dissent in a related case.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, the Texas seizure-and-review procedure and the State’s obscenity definition remain in effect for now. Owners of seized films still face state prosecution and the quick magistrate hearing described in the statute. This dismissal is not a final merits ruling and the constitutional issues could be revisited in later proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent, joined by two Justices, and Justice Douglas’s separate view would have vacated the lower judgment and remanded for reconsideration under their narrower First Amendment standard.