Carter Et Al. v. United States
Headline: Court denies review of federal obscenity-transportation prosecutions, leaving appeals court’s decision allowing trial to proceed for people accused of sending obscene movies across state lines.
Holding: The Court denied review, leaving the Court of Appeals’ reversal intact and allowing criminal charges for interstate transportation of obscene films to proceed toward trial.
- Allows prosecution to proceed against people accused of shipping obscene films across state lines.
- Leaves the appeals court’s reversal in place and sends the case back for trial.
- Highlights disagreement among Justices about federal obscenity regulation limits.
Summary
Background
Petitioners were charged with moving obscene movies across state lines and conspiring to do so under federal criminal statutes that prohibit transporting obscene material by common carrier and for distribution. They asked a federal trial court to dismiss the indictment. The defendants argued two main points: that recent Supreme Court obscenity rules announced in June 1973 could not be applied to conduct that happened before those decisions, and that the statutes use a single national standard for obscenity that the new decisions rejected. The district court dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals reversed and sent the case back for trial (506 F.2d 1251).
Reasoning
The Supreme Court declined to take the case and therefore did not decide the underlying legal questions. The Court’s action was a denial of review, leaving the appeals court’s reversal in place so the prosecution could proceed. Two separate opinions recorded disagreement: Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall) would have granted review and reversed, finding the federal statute overbroad; Justice Douglas would have granted and summarily reversed on the view that bans or regulation of obscenity are unconstitutional.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court refused review, the indictment may go forward and the defendants can be tried under the federal transportation and distribution statutes. The decision is not a final ruling on the legal issues raised—those questions remain open for later review or in subsequent cases. Practically, people charged under these federal obscenity statutes will face trial unless the lower courts or a future Supreme Court ruling says otherwise.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan’s dissent relied on his earlier views that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad; Justice Douglas took an even broader position that any obscenity ban is unconstitutional.
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?