Kaplan v. United States
Headline: Denial of review leaves a D.C. obscenity conviction intact, while several Justices say the local film ban is overbroad and should be overturned and independently reviewed.
Holding: The Court declined to review the D.C. obscenity conviction, leaving the local ban and verdict in place while some Justices would have granted review and reversed the conviction.
- Leaves the D.C. obscenity conviction and local ban in effect for now.
- Calls for independent judicial review of allegedly obscene materials.
- Suggests a remand could require applying local community standards.
Summary
Background
A person was convicted in the District of Columbia for presenting an allegedly obscene film under a local law that bans presenting “obscene, indecent, or filthy” performances. The D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, and the case returned to this Court for further consideration after earlier Supreme Court decisions about obscenity were issued.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court declined to reopen the case and denied review, leaving the conviction and the D.C. statute in place. Justice Brennan, joined by two other Justices, argued the statute is constitutionally overbroad under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and therefore invalid on its face. He said the lower courts and this Court failed to provide the independent review of the actual materials that Jenkins requires and that the petitioner never submitted those materials for that review.
Real world impact
Because the Court refused review, the D.C. conviction stands and the local ban continues to be enforced for now. Justice Brennan urged that the case be vacated and sent back so the materials can be independently reviewed and so a determination can be made whether the defendant should get a new trial applying local community standards. The decision does not resolve the broader constitutional dispute about when governments can suppress sexually oriented material.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan’s dissent, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, explains why they would grant review and reverse; Justice Douglas separately stated he would also grant review and reverse on First Amendment grounds.
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?