Sians v. United States

Background

A person was convicted in federal district court in Illinois for using a common carrier to send allegedly obscene books or films under a federal law that bans transporting obscene material across state lines. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that conviction, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case, leaving the lower-court judgment in place.

Reasoning

Several Justices, led by one who wrote a dissent joined by two colleagues, said the federal statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and should not be used to uphold this conviction. That dissent explained the writer’s earlier views in related cases and argued the defendant did not get a fair chance to have obscenity judged by local community standards. The dissenting Justices would have granted review and reversed, and one Justice noted he would also reverse because he believes any federal ban is barred by the First Amendment.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to take the case, the conviction affirmed by the court below remains in effect. The dissent signals that some Justices think the federal ban on interstate carriage of allegedly obscene material is unconstitutional and that defendants may need a new trial if local community standards were not used. This decision is not a final ruling on those constitutional questions and could change if the Court later agrees to hear a similar case.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissenters sought a full review and reversal and asked that the case be sent back to decide if a new trial is needed under local community standards; they did not all insist the Court decide the case’s merits now.