Village Books, Inc., Et Al. v. Marshall, State's Attorney for Prince Georges County
Headline: Justices decline to review a Maryland injunction blocking sale of allegedly obscene books, leaving the state law and lower-court order in place while dissenters would have overturned the ban.
Holding: The Court declined to take up the case, leaving in place a Maryland injunction that blocked a bookstore from selling allegedly obscene books, while several Justices said the state law is facially overbroad and should be reversed.
- Leaves Maryland injunction stopping bookstore sales in place.
- Allows sellers of sexually oriented books to remain barred in Maryland for now.
- Signals final obscenity rulings may await further court review.
Summary
Background
A group of bookstores was enjoined (given a court order stopping sales) from selling a set of allegedly obscene books under Maryland law, specifically Article 27, §§ 418 and 418A. Section 418A lets circuit courts stop the sale or distribution of publications deemed “obscene” under § 418, and § 418 makes knowingly sending or distributing obscene material into the State a misdemeanor. Maryland courts had applied the obscenity test from Roth as explained in Wagonheim v. Maryland State Board of Censors. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction; the Supreme Court previously vacated and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Miller v. California, but the state court again affirmed in an unreported opinion.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, so it did not decide the constitutional question on the merits. Several Justices dissented: Mr. Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall) argued that § 418A is facially overbroad and should be invalidated under the constitutional test he described in prior opinions, and Mr. Justice Douglas said he would hold that any state ban on obscenity is forbidden by the First Amendment as applied to the States. The dissenters also said the Court failed to perform an independent review of the actual materials, as required by the Court’s decision in Jenkins v. Georgia, because the materials were not certified to this Court.
Real world impact
The denial leaves the Maryland injunction and enforcement of the state obscenity law intact for now, meaning the bookstores remain barred from selling the challenged books in that jurisdiction. Because the Court did not reach the merits, the constitutional question remains open and could be revisited in later proceedings or a future case.
Dissents or concurrances
The dissents emphasize two views: one would strike down broad state obscenity bans altogether, and another would at minimum require the Supreme Court to review the actual materials or send the case back for that review.
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?