Pendleton Et Al. v. California

Background

A group of people were convicted in an Orange County municipal court for distributing materials the State labeled obscene under California Penal Code §311.2. The statute defines "obscene matter" by asking whether material mainly appeals to prurient interest, goes beyond customary candor, and is utterly without redeeming social importance. The California appellate department upheld the convictions, and the defendants asked this Court to review the case.

Reasoning

The Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question, which means the Court declined to decide the case on the merits. Justice Brennan, joined by two other Justices, wrote a dissent arguing that the Constitution protects sexually oriented materials except when they are distributed to juveniles or exposed to unwilling adults. He said that tested against that standard, the California statute is overbroad and invalid on its face. Brennan also criticized the Court for not requesting the allegedly obscene materials for independent review under the tests established in earlier cases like Miller and Jenkins, noting Rule 12(1) allowed the record not to be certified.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal rather than deciding the constitutional question, the convictions and California’s statutory definition remain in effect for now. The dismissal is not a ruling on the law’s constitutionality, so enforcement can continue unless a court later rules otherwise. The dissent signals that at least some Justices would have protected the materials except in cases involving children or nonconsensual exposure.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, urges reversal and finds the statute facially overbroad, citing prior decisions including Miller and Jenkins.