Donald C. Brockett Etc. v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.

1982-01-11

Headline: Court affirms striking down parts of Washington’s 'moral nuisance' law, blocking state power to use temporary and permanent injunctions against sellers and exhibitors of alleged obscene materials.

Holding: The Court affirmed the lower courts’ invalidation of portions of Washington’s "moral nuisance" law that authorized temporary and permanent injunctions against sellers or exhibitors of alleged obscene material.

Real World Impact:

Blocks enforcement of injunction provisions against exhibitors and sellers of alleged obscene material.
Protects businesses selling movies, books, and magazines from those specific injunction procedures.
Highlights that state courts may still interpret remaining parts of the law first.

Topics: obscenity rules, state law challenges, injunctions against sellers, state vs. federal power

Summary

Background

Washington voters adopted a broad "moral nuisance" law aimed at stopping the public sale and exhibition of obscene materials. Several companies that sell and show movies, books, and magazines sued in federal court within months of the law’s adoption, before state courts had interpreted or applied it. The federal District Court and then the Court of Appeals held portions of the law unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment.

Reasoning

The core issue involved parts of the law that allowed courts to issue temporary and permanent injunctions against establishments showing or selling "lewd" or "obscene" material. The Court of Appeals found defects such as no clear limits on when a court could issue a temporary abatement injunction, no assurance of a prompt final decision on the merits, and uncertainty about whether a defendant could argue the material was not obscene when facing contempt for violating an injunction. The statute nonetheless included detailed definitions tied to prior Supreme Court obscenity standards, rules for consolidating the trial on the merits with injunction hearings, scheduling priority, and an explicit severability clause.

Real world impact

By affirming the lower courts, the decision prevents Washington from using the struck provisions to silence or close businesses before a full merits decision. Companies that distribute or exhibit materials are protected from those specific injunction procedures. At the same time, parts of the law not invalidated may still be subject to further state-court interpretation or enforcement.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger, joined by two Justices, dissented and argued federal courts should have deferred to Washington state courts first. He would have sent the case back so state judges could construe the statute and possibly avoid federal constitutional rulings.