Stanley Marks v. Simon L. Leis, Jr., Etc.

Background

A group of bookstore owners and lessees in Ohio faced state nuisance proceedings because prosecutors said some books sold at their store were obscene. The owners sued in federal court while the state action was pending and the parties agreed the state courts would not proceed until the federal case finished. The District Court refused to stop the state nuisance action, accepting that Ohio could temporarily close the bookstore for selling allegedly obscene materials. The Ohio obscenity statute at issue sets several tests for what counts as obscene and is described in related litigation such as Huffman v. Pursue.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court did not decide the constitutional free-speech question on the merits. Instead the Court vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of two recent decisions, Sosna v. Iowa and Huffman v. Pursue. That means the lower court must reconsider its rulings under the guidance of those decisions. The opinion does not resolve whether the nuisance procedure or Ohio’s definition of obscenity is constitutional, so no final winner on the First Amendment issue was named by the Court.

Real world impact

The remand sends the dispute back to the federal trial court for more proceedings; enforcement is not finally approved or blocked by this decision. Bookstore owners and state prosecutors must revisit evidence, procedure, and strategy in light of the related cases. The ultimate outcome could still affect whether Ohio can close a store for selling allegedly obscene books, but the Supreme Court’s action here is procedural and leaves speech rights unresolved for now.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented. He argued Ohio had waived any bar to federal-court review by agreeing to federal jurisdiction, viewed the Ohio obscenity definition as overbroad, and said suppression of sexually oriented materials is unconstitutional; he would have reversed.