Kirkpatrick v. New York
Headline: Court dismisses appeal over New York obscenity convictions, leaving booksellers’ criminal convictions under state law intact while a dissent argues the statutes are unconstitutionally broad.
Holding:
- Leaves booksellers’ convictions under New York obscenity law in place.
- Allows the state presumption that sellers know obscene content to be enforced.
- Supreme Court declines to decide the broader constitutional ban on such suppression.
Summary
Background
A group of booksellers was convicted in New York City criminal court for promoting or possessing with intent to promote obscene material under New York Penal Law § 235.05. They challenged a related state rule, § 235.10(1), which creates a legal presumption that a seller knows the content and character of material sold. New York defines “obscene” in § 235.00 by a three-part test, including prurient appeal and lack of redeeming social value. Lower New York courts upheld the convictions and the statutory presumption.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question, effectively leaving the state convictions and the presumption-of-knowledge statute in place. Justice Douglas stated he would note probable jurisdiction and would reverse, but he did not represent the Court’s view. The formal dismissal means the Court declined to decide the constitutional challenge in this appeal.
Real world impact
As a result of the dismissal, the booksellers’ convictions remain valid and New York’s enforcement of its obscenity definition and the seller-knowledge presumption can continue. The dismissal does not settle the broader constitutional debate over when States may criminally suppress sexually oriented material; that question remains unresolved by this decision.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, dissented: he argued that absent distribution to children or exposure to unwilling adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments bar wholesale suppression of sexually oriented materials, and he would vacate and remand the convictions.
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?