Cherokee News & Arcade, Inc. v. Oklahoma
Headline: Oklahoma obscenity convictions vacated and sent back for reconsideration after the Court granted review and ordered the lower court to re-evaluate criminal sales of sexual materials under recent obscenity rulings.
Holding: The Court granted review, vacated the Oklahoma judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration under recent Supreme Court obscenity decisions.
- Lower courts must re-evaluate Oklahoma obscenity convictions under recent Supreme Court rulings.
- Sellers of sexual materials may get convictions vacated or reconsidered.
- State obscenity laws may be reassessed for overbreadth against First and Fourteenth Amendment concerns.
Summary
Background
People convicted in Oklahoma for selling allegedly obscene books and magazines were prosecuted under state statutes that ban selling "obscene, filthy, indecent" materials. The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the state-court judgment, and sent the case back to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for fresh consideration in light of several recent Supreme Court decisions about obscenity.
Reasoning
The central practical question is how the new Supreme Court obscenity decisions affect these convictions and the state law that was used to prosecute them. The Court did not issue a full, new ruling on the merits here; instead it ordered the lower court to re-examine the case and apply the standards announced in the listed recent cases. As a result, the original conviction is no longer final while the lower court considers those controlling rulings.
Real world impact
People who sold sexually oriented materials in Oklahoma will have their convictions re-evaluated under the newly announced obscenity rules. The Oklahoma statutes at issue were challenged as overly broad by a dissenting Justice, so the statutes themselves may face a serious constitutional review. Because the case was sent back for further proceedings, the outcome could change and is not yet a final, nationwide rule.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, said the Oklahoma statutes are facially overbroad and would invalidate them; Justice Douglas would have reversed on broader grounds banning state obscenity regulation. These views explain why some Justices would reach a different, more protective result for speech.
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?