Spivak v. Shriver

Background

Several appeals reached the Court after decisions in lower federal and state courts in Tennessee, Ohio, South Carolina, and Maryland. The cases involve actions tied to sexually explicit films and an adult theater. The Court also considered a motion by appellants to strike a supplemental brief and denied that motion.

Reasoning

The Court did not decide the underlying merits here. Instead it vacated the lower-court judgments and remanded the cases for further consideration in light of a group of companion opinions issued at the same time (including Miller v. California and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, among others listed). In short, the Justices told the lower courts to reconsider these cases applying the new standards and guidance set out in those related opinions.

Real world impact

The immediate effect is procedural: judges in the affected courts must re-evaluate the earlier rulings about films and the adult theater using the newer legal standards named by the Supreme Court. The decision does not finally resolve who wins on the underlying facts, and outcomes could change on rehearing.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas stated he would have reversed the judgments outright. Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, said the Court should vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with his views in the companion Paris Adult Theatre I opinion.