Ayre v. Maryland

Background

Thomas Ayre, the defendant, was convicted in Baltimore for possessing obscene materials with intent to sell under Maryland’s criminal statute §418. Maryland courts had defined “obscene” by adopting the test from Miller v. California, and the state courts denied further review before the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and therefore did not decide the statute’s constitutionality on the merits. Justice Douglas said any government ban or regulation of obscenity is unconstitutional and would have summarily reversed. Justice Brennan, joined by two colleagues, dissented from the denial and argued §418 is facially overbroad under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and should be overturned. Brennan relied on arguments he made in his earlier dissent in Miller v. California.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the Maryland conviction and the state law remain in effect for now, and the defendant’s conviction stands unless overturned in another proceeding. Businesses and sellers of sexually oriented materials in Maryland are directly affected by the continued enforcement of §418. The ruling is not a final merits decision by the full Court, so the legal status of similar state obscenity laws could change if the issue returns for review.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices (Brennan, Stewart, Marshall) said the Maryland statute is facially invalid and would have granted review and reversed; Justice Douglas separately would have reversed on broader First Amendment grounds.