Cangiano v. United States

Background

A man, convicted in federal court for transporting allegedly obscene materials across state lines for sale, challenged his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §1465. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that conviction. The man asked the Supreme Court to review the case, but the Court refused to take the case and left the lower-court judgment in place.

Reasoning

The central question here was whether the man’s federal conviction should be reviewed and whether the statutory and procedural issues raised merit a new decision. The Court declined to review the case. Several Justices disagreed: three joined a written dissent saying the statute is overly broad and would grant review and reverse, and another Justice argued that any government ban or regulation of obscenity is unconstitutional and would also reverse. The dissents stressed that it was unclear whether the conviction relied on local community standards, a point important to fair notice and the right to present relevant evidence.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, the federal conviction remains in force for this defendant. The dissents, however, press for vacating the judgment and returning the case for a new trial if local community standards were not used. That means the immediate effect is limited to this defendant, but the written disagreements signal that future cases could revisit federal obscenity rules and whether prosecutions must use local community standards.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissenting Justices would have granted review and reversed, citing overbreadth and due process concerns, and they urged a remand to determine whether a new trial under local community standards is required.