Van Gundy Et Al. v. United States

Background

Gary Van Gundy and Rivergate News Agency were convicted in the Eastern District of Louisiana of receiving allegedly obscene materials that had been shipped by common carrier in interstate commerce, under the federal statute prohibiting carriage of obscene matter. The Fifth Circuit affirmed those convictions, and the defendants asked the Court to review that judgment.

Reasoning

The Court declined to grant review and denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving the lower-court affirmance in place. The denial means the Supreme Court did not decide the constitutional questions raised. A dissenting opinion by Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall) argued the federal statute is overbroad and unconstitutional, citing earlier dissents in Orito and Miller, and urged reversal. Justice Douglas also dissented, stating any state or federal ban or regulation of obscenity is constitutionally prohibited and would reverse.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the convictions and the Fifth Circuit’s judgment remain in effect. The ruling is not a final decision on the constitutionality of the federal obscenity law, and the defendants’ claims about the proper legal standard remain unresolved. Justice Brennan also urged that the case be examined under local community standards and suggested vacatur and possible new trial if those standards were not applied.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan would have granted review and reversed, calling the statute facially overbroad and pressing for consideration of local community standards; Justice Douglas would have summarily reversed, rejecting any obscenity regulation.