Dachsteiner v. United States

Background

A man was convicted in federal district court in Northern California for using the mails to send allegedly obscene materials under a federal ban in 18 U.S.C. §1461. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that conviction, and the Supreme Court denied review, so the lower-court decision stands for now.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s action was simply to refuse review of the appeal. A three-Justice dissent explained why the case should have been heard: Justice Brennan, joined by two colleagues, said the federal mailing ban is too broad and unconstitutional on its face. He relied on his earlier dissents and argued that the case was decided without clear application of local community standards for obscenity.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to hear the case, the conviction affirmed by the Ninth Circuit remains in effect. The dissent emphasizes that the defendant should get a chance to show whether local community standards were used, and that a new trial or reconsideration could be appropriate if those standards were not applied. The decision leaves unresolved constitutional questions about how broadly the federal mail ban may be used.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent is key: he would have granted review, reversed the Ninth Circuit, and remanded to decide whether the defendant should get a new trial under local community standards because of due process concerns.