Avenue Book Store v. City of Tallmadge, Ohio

1982-11-08

Headline: Denial leaves local bookstore’s rear section permanently closed for selling obscene material, upholding a state nuisance order and leaving national questions about nuisance law and obscenity unresolved.

Holding: The Court denied review, leaving in place a state court’s injunction that permanently bars a bookstore’s rear section from displaying or selling material judged obscene under Ohio law.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the bookstore’s rear section closed for selling obscene material.
Allows states to use nuisance laws to restrict adult materials, for now.
Keeps national constitutional rules on nuisance-based obscenity controls unsettled.

Topics: obscenity regulation, public nuisance, books and adult materials, government censorship, state authority

Summary

Background

A local city, Tallmadge, sued a neighborhood bookstore after finding that the store sold material the state labeled obscene. A trial judge called the store a public nuisance and ordered the rear section — where the explicit items were displayed and sold — permanently closed. The Ohio Court of Appeals mostly upheld that court order, which bars use of the rear section for materials Ohio law defines as obscene.

Reasoning

The central question is whether a state can use old-fashioned nuisance lawsuits to stop a business from selling or displaying obscene material without first having a final court ruling that the materials are obscene. The Ohio appeals court said the order was not an unconstitutional prior restraint because it did not impose punishment unless obscenity was proven and did not create a censorship system. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision, so the lower-court order remains in effect and the city’s restriction stands.

Real world impact

Because the high court refused to take the case, the bookstore’s rear section stays closed under the state court’s order. The decision leaves intact one way states can regulate explicit materials, but it does not settle whether all nuisance actions like this meet constitutional safeguards. That means similar disputes in other states could turn out differently until the Supreme Court addresses the issue.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented from the denial, arguing the Court should decide the important unsettled questions about nuisance law, procedural safeguards, and the risk of censorship.