Cangiano Et Al. v. United States

Background

Two brothers were convicted in federal court for transporting allegedly obscene materials across state lines for sale, prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §1465. The federal appeals court upheld their convictions. After this Court earlier sent the case back for reconsideration under recent obscenity rules, the appeals court affirmed again, and the petition to this Court for review was denied.

Reasoning

The Court declined to take up the case, so it did not rule on the merits of whether the federal ban applies or is constitutional. Because the Court denied review, the lower-court decisions upholding the convictions remain in place. Several Justices disagreed: Justice Douglas said any federal ban on obscenity is forbidden by the First Amendment, and Justice Brennan (joined by two colleagues) argued the law is overbroad and that the defendants were denied required independent review of the disputed materials and the chance to have local community standards applied.

Real world impact

As a direct result, the convictions and potential fines or jail sentences under the federal statute stand. People who ship or sell materials that a prosecutor calls obscene continue to risk federal criminal charges. The denial is not a final ruling on the law’s constitutionality; dissenting Justices urged vacating or remanding for fresh review under the Court’s obscenity framework.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan said the case should be sent back or reversed because the Court failed to review the actual materials and because defendants must be able to rely on local community standards; Justice Douglas would have reversed outright.