Central Magazine Sales, Ltd. v. United States

1967-10-23

Headline: A magazine seller’s appeal succeeds as the Court grants review and reverses the appeals court, applying earlier rulings and allowing the company to avoid the lower court’s adverse judgment.

Holding: The Court granted review and reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, applying Redrup v. New York and thereby overturning the appeals court outcome in favor of the magazine seller.

Real World Impact:

Overturns the appeals court’s judgment, allowing the magazine seller to avoid that adverse ruling.
Applies the Redrup decision as the controlling precedent in this case.
Shows disagreement among Justices about the proper legal basis for the outcome.

Topics: publishing and magazines, federal appeals reversal, court decision review, use of prior Supreme Court rulings

Summary

Background

A company that sold magazines, Central Magazine Sales, Ltd., brought a legal challenge against the United States and lost in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The company asked the Supreme Court to review that appeals-court decision by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court agreed to hear the matter and issued a short, unsigned opinion on the case.

Reasoning

The Court’s brief per curiam opinion granted the petition and reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit. The opinion expressly cited the prior decision Redrup v. New York as controlling authority for the result. The Court’s text does not set out extended factual findings or a detailed explanation; instead it reached its conclusion by reference to earlier rulings the Justices viewed as controlling.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court reversed, the appeals-court ruling no longer stands, and the magazine seller obtains the practical benefit of that reversal. The decision signals that the Court relied on its earlier case law (specifically Redrup) to resolve this dispute. The short opinion leaves many details about the underlying dispute and longer-term legal consequences of the ruling unstated in this opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan agreed with the reversal and pointed to reasoning he had set out in other opinions; the Chief Justice said he would have affirmed under different precedents (Roth); Justice Marshall did not participate in the decision.