Vance v. Universal Amusement Co.

1980-05-12

Headline: Court affirms lower rulings blocking Texas nuisance law that allowed judges to bar future film showings without prompt review, striking down indefinite prior restraints that threatened movie exhibitors’ free speech.

Holding: The Court affirmed the appeals court, ruling that Texas nuisance statutes cannot be used to impose indefinite prior restraints on movie exhibitions without prompt judicial safeguards, and therefore cannot be enforced against exhibitors.

Real World Impact:

Prevents Texas from enforcing nuisance injunctions that could bar film showings without prompt judicial review
Protects movie exhibitors from indefinite pretrial bans and contempt threats before final obscenity rulings
Affirms need for special safeguards when courts consider restraining speech-related activities

Topics: obscenity law, prior restraints, movie theaters, free speech, state nuisance laws

Summary

Background

In 1973 the King Arts Theatre, an adults-only indoor movie theater in Texas, faced lease termination after a county attorney said he would seek a public nuisance injunction to stop future showings of allegedly obscene films. The theater sued in federal court seeking a declaration and to block any nuisance action. The litigation centered on two Texas statutes, Art. 4666 and Art. 4667(a), authorizing injunctions against nuisances including commercial exhibition of obscene material.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the nuisance statutes allowed judges to impose indefinite prior restraints on movie exhibitions without a final judicial finding of obscenity or prompt review. Lower courts split: a three-judge district court found the statutes enabled ex parte temporary restraining orders and prolonged injunctions; an en banc Fifth Circuit held Art. 4667(a) unconstitutional because it permitted injunctions against unnamed films and lacked safeguards required by Freedman. The Supreme Court agreed, reasoning that these procedures carried a heavy presumption against prior restraints and were more burdensome than criminal penalties for past speech.

Real world impact

The decision prevents Texas from using its nuisance injunction statutes to impose indefinite pretrial bans on film exhibitions without prompt judicial safeguards. Movie exhibitors gain protection against ex parte orders and long restraints pending final obscenity rulings. The Court emphasized that its ruling rested on procedural defects and did not foreclose all possible, properly safeguarded restraints on speech.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented. Chief Justice Burger would have dismissed or abstained, noting no immediate controversy and advising state courts to interpret the statute. Justices White and Rehnquist argued the injunction procedure resembled criminal law and provided adequate protections under existing rules.