Flynt v. Ohio
Headline: Court dismisses appeal and allows Ohio obscenity prosecution to proceed, denying immediate review of publishers’ claim that prosecutors singled them out for discriminatory enforcement.
Holding: The Court dismissed the publishers’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling was not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. §1257, so federal review must await a final state judgment.
- Allows Ohio criminal prosecution to proceed while federal review waits for a final state judgment.
- Prevents immediate Supreme Court review of discriminatory-prosecution claims by publishers.
- Leaves First Amendment and obscenity questions undecided at the federal level.
Summary
Background
On July 14, 1976, Ohio prosecutors filed criminal complaints charging the publishers with disseminating obscenity under an Ohio law. A municipal trial court dismissed the complaints after finding selective and discriminatory prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that reversal, and the publishers sought review here.
Reasoning
The central question was whether this Court could decide the publishers’ federal claim now or had to wait for a final state judgment. The Court explained that it generally may review only final decisions by a state's highest court under 28 U.S.C. §1257. Because there was no guilty finding or sentence and other federal issues (for example, whether the material is actually obscene) remained for the state trial, the Ohio decision was not final. The Court considered prior exceptions but concluded none applied and that delaying review would not seriously erode any identifiable federal policy. For those reasons the writ was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Real world impact
The decision lets the Ohio criminal prosecution go forward and requires the publishers to await a final state-court judgment before seeking Supreme Court review of the discriminatory-prosecution claim. The Court did not rule on whether the prosecution violates the Constitution or whether the magazine’s content is obscene; those questions remain for the state trial and any final appeals.
Dissents or concurrances
Three Justices dissented, arguing the prosecution threatened important First Amendment interests and that immediate federal review was warranted to protect publishers from unconstitutional prosecutions.
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?