Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.

1985-06-19

Headline: Court restricts wholesale nullification of Washington obscenity law, reverses appeals court and sends case back so only unconstitutional parts are narrowed or removed, leaving most enforcement intact.

Holding: The Court ruled that the court of appeals was wrong to strike down the Washington moral nuisance law entirely and ordered the case sent back so only unconstitutional applications be limited or removed.

Real World Impact:

Stops wholesale invalidation of the Washington obscenity law.
Requires courts to narrow or remove only unconstitutional applications.
Encourages lower courts to seek state court interpretation first.

Topics: obscenity laws, free speech limits, state criminal law, courts narrowing statutes

Summary

Background

The State of Washington enacted a moral nuisance law on April 1, 1982, targeting places that sell or show obscene books or films. The law defined “prurient” as “that which incites lasciviousness or lust.” Within days, several businesses that sell sexually oriented books and movies sued in federal court, arguing the definition reached material that only arouses normal sexual interest. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, later rejected the constitutional challenges after trial, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and struck down the entire statute as unconstitutionally overbroad.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether the appeals court was right to invalidate the whole law. The Justices concluded the Ninth Circuit erred in striking down the statute in its entirety. The Court explained that when a law can be applied constitutionally in some situations, courts should generally limit invalidation to those unconstitutional applications rather than nullifying the whole statute. The opinion noted the statute’s severability clause and said state courts could likely construe the law to follow the familiar Miller obscenity standards.

Real world impact

The decision sends the case back for further proceedings rather than allowing a blanket ban on the statute. That means Washington’s obscenity rules remain largely available to enforce against clearly obscene material, while courts must narrow or remove only those parts that would punish protected expression. The ruling also signals that lower federal courts should consider limiting constructions and state-court interpretation before striking down state laws entirely.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor (joined by two others) argued federal courts should have allowed state courts to interpret the statute first (abstention). Justice Brennan dissented, believing the statute was substantially overbroad and should be invalidated on its face.