Al Star v. David Preller
Headline: Upheld Maryland film-licensing law, allowing the State to require licenses and bar 'obscene' movies, affecting bookstore owners and adult-film exhibitors who show coin-operated viewing films.
Holding: The Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment and allowed Maryland to enforce its film‑licensing statute, permitting the Board to deny licenses while providing prompt judicial review and placing the burden of proof on the Board.
- Allows Maryland to continue requiring licenses for films before exhibition.
- Permits the State Board to deny licenses for films labeled 'obscene' under §6(b).
- Bookstore owners and adult‑film exhibitors face licensing and potential seizure of films.
Summary
Background
A Baltimore bookstore owner operated coin‑operated viewing machines that showed portions of so‑called “adult” films. After police raids seized those films for lack of a Maryland license, the owner sued, saying the State’s requirement to license films before exhibition violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A prior version of Maryland’s law had been held unconstitutional in Freedman, but a three‑judge federal court found the amended statute remedied the earlier defects and upheld it. The statute requires licensing and forbids licensing of films the Board finds “obscene,” and it defines “obscene” in §6(b).
Reasoning
The main question was whether the amended licensing system fixed the constitutional problems identified earlier. The lower court emphasized that the new law provides prompt judicial review after a denial and places the burden of proof on the State Board of Censors. After this Court asked the lower court to reconsider in light of Miller v. California, the three‑judge court again upheld the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed that judgment, allowing the State’s licensing scheme to stand.
Real world impact
As affirmed, Maryland may continue to require licenses before films are shown and may deny licenses for films the Board deems obscene under §6(b). Bookstore operators and exhibitors who show adult films must obtain licenses or face seizure and administrative denial, and they will need to seek quick court review when a license is denied.
Dissents or concurrances
Two separate dissents would have reversed. Justice Douglas argued that any form of prior censorship is unconstitutional and would reverse, while Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall) said §6(b) is overbroad and invalid on its face.
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?