McKinney v. Parsons

1975-12-01

Headline: Court declines to review Birmingham obscenity conviction, leaving a city ban and the defendant’s conviction in place while dissenters say the ordinance is unconstitutionally broad and suppresses sexual materials.

Holding: The Court declined to review the challenge to Birmingham’s obscenity law, leaving the lower courts’ denial of relief and the local conviction in place while a dissent argued the ordinance was overbroad.

Real World Impact:

Leaves Birmingham conviction and local obscenity enforcement intact in this case.
Makes it harder for distributors of sexually oriented material to challenge local bans.
Signals ongoing disagreement among Justices over broad suppression of sexual expression.

Topics: obscenity laws, freedom of speech, local criminal enforcement, court review of convictions

Summary

Background

A person was convicted under a Birmingham ordinance that made it illegal to exhibit, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute “obscene” material. The ordinance defined “obscene” by reference to what an average person finds prurient under contemporary standards. The defendant’s direct appeal was dismissed for an untimely brief, state review was denied, and a federal habeas petition was later denied and affirmed on appeal by the Fifth Circuit.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the city’s obscenity ban could be reviewed and whether it unconstitutionally suppressed sexually oriented material. The Supreme Court declined to take the case and denied review, leaving the lower courts’ rulings and the conviction in place. Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, dissented and argued the ordinance was facially overbroad and that, except for distribution to children or exposure to unwilling adults, such materials should be protected.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to hear the case, the Birmingham conviction and the local obscenity rule remain effective in this instance. People and businesses that distribute sexually oriented material in Birmingham and similar cities continue to face enforcement under comparable local laws. This decision was a denial of review rather than a final judgment on the constitutional question, so the legal issue could be revisited in a future case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent explains he would have granted review, vacated the conviction, and sent the case back, reasoning the ordinance was unconstitutionally broad in scope.