Roth v. New Jersey
Headline: Vacates conviction and remands an obscenity case for reconsideration under new Supreme Court obscenity rulings, delaying enforcement of a New Jersey law regulating sale and possession of sexually explicit materials.
Holding:
- Requires lower courts to re-evaluate obscenity convictions under recent Supreme Court standards.
- Temporarily delays enforcement of New Jersey’s broad statute regulating sale and possession.
- Highlights possibility that overly broad state obscenity laws may be invalidated.
Summary
Background
A person was convicted in New Jersey for possessing and selling allegedly obscene and indecent publications under a broad state criminal law, New Jersey Stat. Ann. § 2A:115-2 (1969). The conviction and the statute’s wide wording prompted review because the case raises whether the State may criminally punish sale or possession of sexually oriented materials.
Reasoning
The Court granted review, vacated the judgment, and sent the case back to the New Jersey courts to consider the conviction in light of several recent Supreme Court obscenity decisions (including Miller v. California and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton). The order does not resolve the ultimate constitutional question here; it instructs the lower court to apply the new guidance from those cases before reaching a final outcome.
Real world impact
The ruling requires the lower court to re-evaluate the conviction using the Court’s latest obscenity tests, so enforcement of the New Jersey statute is put on hold pending further proceedings. People who sell, distribute, or possess sexually explicit materials in New Jersey may see prosecutions re-examined, and the State’s ability to use this broad statute may be narrowed depending on the lower court’s further analysis.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall) dissented, arguing the statute is facially overbroad and would invalidate the law except for distribution to juveniles or exposure to nonconsenting adults; Justice Douglas would have reversed the conviction outright.
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?