Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana
Headline: Adult bookstores and obscenity prosecutions: Court allows states to use obscenity convictions under RICO but blocks ex parte pretrial seizures, protecting bookstore inventories and requiring adversary hearings before removal.
Holding: The Court ruled that states may use obscenity convictions as RICO predicates and upheld RICO prosecutions, but reversed an ex parte pretrial seizure of a bookstore’s inventory because expressive materials cannot be removed without an adversary obscenity determination.
- Allows prosecutors to use RICO for repeated obscenity offenses.
- Limits pretrial seizures: inventories can't be removed without an adversary obscenity hearing.
- Remands cases for further proceedings; civil forfeiture questions not decided.
Summary
Background
In two separate Indiana cases, the State targeted adult bookstores and a bookseller. In the Fort Wayne Books civil case, prosecutors used state RICO and CRRA laws to seek seizure and forfeiture of three stores and their inventories, based on many prior obscenity convictions. In the Sappenfield criminal case, a bookseller was charged with misdemeanor obscenity counts and two RICO felony counts that treated repeated obscenity violations as racketeering.
Reasoning
The Court accepted review of the important First Amendment questions and held that a state may include obscenity offenses as predicate acts under its RICO law and that the RICO statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. The Court also found the harsher RICO punishments did not by themselves violate the First Amendment and said civil remedies were not ripe for decision because none had been enforced. Separately, the Court reversed the Fort Wayne pretrial ex parte seizure, explaining prior cases require an adversary judicial determination of obscenity before expressive materials can be removed from circulation on a large scale.
Real world impact
The ruling allows states to pursue RICO prosecutions when multiple obscenity violations are shown, giving prosecutors a stronger tool against repeat violations. But it restricts their power to shut down and seize book inventories before a full adversary hearing, protecting bookstores and the public from prior restraint. The Court affirmed Sappenfield’s charges and remanded both cases for further proceedings; it did not resolve post-trial forfeiture or other civil sanctions.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice O'Connor would have dismissed the Sappenfield review for lack of jurisdiction. Justice Stevens (joined by Brennan and Marshall) warned that linking obscenity to RICO and the civil-forfeiture scheme threatens protected speech and would have barred using RICO/CRRA to close bookstores.
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?