Ridens Et Al. v. Illinois Et Al.
Headline: Court declines review of convictions for selling allegedly obscene publications, leaving Illinois and Moline obscenity rules in effect while dissenting Justices would have overturned those convictions.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving the Illinois convictions for selling allegedly obscene publications in place while several Justices said they would have granted and reversed.
- Leaves Illinois convictions for selling allegedly obscene publications in place.
- Allows Illinois and Moline obscenity rules to continue enforcement against sellers.
- Shows unresolved disagreement among Justices over obscenity bans.
Summary
Background
The case involves sellers who were convicted for selling allegedly obscene publications under an Illinois criminal statute and a city ordinance in Moline. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed those convictions. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously sent the case back to the Illinois court for reconsideration in light of Miller v. California, and after the Illinois court again affirmed the convictions the current petition for review was denied.
Reasoning
The Court’s action here was to deny the petition for review, so it did not decide the full legal questions on the merits. Three Justices (Brennan, joined by Stewart and Marshall) stated they would have granted review and reversed because the judgment came after Miller. Justice Douglas separately said he would have granted review and summarily reversed on the view that any ban or regulation of obscenity is unconstitutional. Because the Court denied review, the lower-court affirmance stands for now.
Real world impact
Practically, the sellers’ convictions remain in force in Illinois, and the state and city obscenity rules at issue can continue to be enforced in this case. The Supreme Court’s denial did not create a new national ruling on obscenity; it left the existing lower-court outcome intact. The separate opinions show disagreement among Justices and indicate the issue remains contested at the national level, so future cases could produce a different outcome.
Dissents or concurrances
The dissenting Justices argued for review and reversal: Brennan (with Stewart and Marshall) would reverse because the case was decided after Miller; Douglas would reverse on the broader view that obscenity bans are constitutionally forbidden.
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?