Taylor v. Tennessee
Headline: High Court declines to review a Tennessee conviction for exhibiting two allegedly obscene films, leaving the state’s obscenity law and the conviction in place while dissenters call the statute overbroad.
Holding: The Court refused to review the Tennessee conviction for exhibiting two allegedly obscene films, thereby leaving the conviction and the state obscenity statute unexamined by this Court.
- Leaves the Tennessee conviction and state obscenity law in place for now.
- Prevents immediate Supreme Court review of the statute’s constitutionality.
- Three Justices dissented, calling the law too broad and unconstitutional.
Summary
Background
A man was convicted after a jury trial in Sullivan County, Tennessee, for exhibiting two allegedly obscene motion pictures under a Tennessee statute that makes it unlawful to bring, distribute, exhibit, or possess obscene matter. The statute defines "obscene" with three parts: prurient appeal, patently offensive sexual conduct, and lack of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Tennessee Supreme Court had earlier held the films obscene and refused review.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, leaving the state-court judgment intact. There is no majority opinion from the Court in this order. Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, dissented. He argued that, except for distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments bar wholesale suppression of sexually oriented materials, and that the Tennessee statute is constitutionally too broad on its face. Justice Brennan said he would grant review, vacate the conviction, and remand for further proceedings consistent with his earlier dissents.
Real world impact
Because the Court declined to review, the conviction and the statute remain in force in Tennessee for now, and the defendant’s conviction stands. The decision is not a final Supreme Court ruling on the statute’s constitutionality; the law’s validity could be revisited in a later case. The dissent shows that some Justices believe the statute improperly censors protected speech.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan’s dissent argues the law is facially invalid and says he would have reversed and remanded the case.
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?