Millican v. United States
Headline: Court refuses to review a mail-obscenity conviction, leaving a federal mail-ban conviction in place while dissenting Justices call the statute overbroad and urge reversal and remand.
Holding: The Court denied review of a conviction for using the mails to distribute allegedly obscene material under 18 U.S.C. §1461, leaving the lower-court affirmation in place while dissenters urged reversal.
- Leaves the mail-distribution conviction and penalties in place.
- Highlights unresolved limits on federal obscenity enforcement and review procedures.
- Dissenters urged vacatur and remand for new review under local community standards.
Summary
Background
A person was convicted in federal district court in Georgia for using the mails to send allegedly obscene materials in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1461. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that conviction. The Supreme Court denied review, so the lower-court judgment remains in effect unless other relief is obtained.
Reasoning
The central question before the Justices was whether to accept the case for review and consider the constitutionality and scope of the federal ban on mailing obscene material. The Court declined to hear the case. In a detailed dissent, Justice Brennan (joined by two other Justices) argued the statute is overbroad and unconstitutional, said earlier opinions support that view, and explained that the Supreme Court and the lower court failed to conduct the independent review of the actual materials called for by prior decisions (the second and third parts of the Miller obscenity test).
Real world impact
Because the Court refused review, the conviction and any penalties remain in place for the person involved. The dissent urged that the judgment should be vacated and sent back so the materials could be reviewed and the defendant could seek a new trial applying local community standards. The ruling therefore leaves unresolved the larger dispute over how and when the federal ban can be applied.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Douglas stated he would grant review and reverse on First Amendment grounds, and Justice Brennan set out specific remedies: vacatur, remand for independent review, and potential consideration of new trial under local standards.
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?