Michigan v. Bloss
Headline: Court vacates Michigan obscenity convictions and sends cases back for reconsideration under recent First Amendment obscenity rules, affecting sellers of sexual publications facing state criminal charges.
Holding: The Court vacated the Michigan convictions and remanded the cases for further consideration under recent Supreme Court obscenity decisions rather than deciding the convictions on the merits.
- Requires state courts to re-evaluate obscenity convictions under new Supreme Court standards.
- May limit prosecutions unless material was shown to minors or exposed to unconsenting adults.
Summary
Background
People in Michigan were criminally prosecuted for selling certain sexually explicit publications under a state law (Mich. Stat. Ann. §28.575(1)). The Michigan Supreme Court reversed those convictions, ruling that suppressing sexual expression could not stand unless there was evidence the materials were given to minors or offensively exposed to adults who had not consented. That reversal and its reasoning brought the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Reasoning
The main question was whether the Michigan convictions fit with the Court’s newly announced obscenity standards. Instead of resolving the underlying guilt or innocence, the Court vacated the judgment and sent the cases back to the Michigan courts to reconsider in light of several recent Supreme Court decisions addressing obscene material, including Miller v. California and related opinions. The majority did not issue a final ruling on the facts or the convictions themselves. One Justice separately said he would dismiss the appeal because it did not raise a substantial federal question.
Real world impact
State courts and prosecutors must now re-evaluate similar obscenity prosecutions using the Court’s recent guidance. Sellers of sexually oriented publications in Michigan may see their cases reexamined, and some past convictions could be reconsidered or overturned depending on how lower courts apply the new tests. The Supreme Court’s order does not itself decide guilt or innocence; it directs further review under updated legal standards.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, dissented and would have dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial federal question, noting that the Michigan court’s approach matched protections he supported.
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?