Harding v. United States
Obscenity conviction sent back to appeals court for reconsideration; Justices grant review, set aside the judgment, and order the Tenth Circuit to re-evaluate a courier-based obscenity conviction under new rulings.
Holding
The Court granted review, set aside the appeals court’s judgment, and sent the case back to the Tenth Circuit to reconsider the obscenity conviction under the Court’s recent obscenity rulings.
Real-world impact
- Sends the conviction back for reconsideration under new obscenity standards.
- Leaves the criminal charge unresolved pending the appeals court’s new review.
- Could change how federal prosecutions for sending allegedly obscene materials proceed.
Topics
Summary
Background
A man, Alex Harding (also called Mark Harding), was convicted in the U.S. District Court in Colorado for using an express company to carry allegedly obscene material, prosecuted under a federal statute that bans sending obscene matter in interstate commerce. The conviction reached the Tenth Circuit, and the Supreme Court took up the case for further review in light of several recent obscenity decisions.
Reasoning
The Court granted review, set aside the appeals-court judgment, and sent the case back to the Tenth Circuit for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions about obscenity, including Miller v. California and related cases. The high Court did not rule on the final question of guilt or the full constitutionality of the federal statute in this order. Instead, it instructed the lower court to re-evaluate the conviction using the principles announced in those recent opinions.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is procedural: the conviction is not final and must be reexamined by the appeals court under the newly stated obscenity standards. That means the outcome could change after the Tenth Circuit applies those decisions. The ruling affects the petitioner and could influence how other federal prosecutions for sending allegedly obscene materials are reviewed while courts sort out the proper standards.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall) would have held the governing federal statute facially overbroad and ordered relief; Justice Douglas would have reversed the conviction, viewing federal obscenity regulation as barred by the First Amendment.
Opinions in this case
- 1.Opinion 108939
- 2.Opinion 9425564
- 3.Opinion 9425563
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “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?”