Kaplan v. California
Court refuses to review a bookseller’s obscenity conviction under California law, leaving the conviction intact while dissenters say the statute is unconstitutionally broad and threatens free expression.
Holding
By denying review, the Court left a bookseller’s conviction for selling an allegedly obscene book under California’s broad statute in place instead of ordering a new trial or striking the law down as overbroad.
Real-world impact
- Leaves the bookseller’s conviction in place by denying review.
- Signals that broad state obscenity statutes may be constitutionally vulnerable.
- Calls for chance to retry cases under local community standards.
Topics
Summary
Background
A bookseller was convicted in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles for selling an allegedly obscene book under California Penal Code §311.2(a), which incorporated §311(a)’s definition of “obscene.” The Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court affirmed the conviction, and certification to the Court of Appeal was denied. The Supreme Court previously granted review, vacated the lower judgment, and remanded for consideration in light of Miller v. California; on remand the Appellate Department again affirmed. The Supreme Court then denied further review in this posture.
Reasoning
Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, dissented from the denial of review. He said the core question is whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments allow the State to wholly suppress sexually oriented materials when there is no distribution to juveniles or no obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults. Brennan argued that §311.2, as tied to §311(a), was constitutionally overbroad and invalid on its face. He would have granted review and reversed the conviction. He also said the defendant should get a chance to have the case decided under local community standards and to introduce evidence relevant to that standard.
Real world impact
As the Court declined review, the bookseller’s conviction remains in place for now. Brennan’s opinion signals that broad state obscenity statutes may be vulnerable and that defendants should have opportunities to test community standards or get new trials. Because the Court denied review rather than issuing a full merits decision, the legal issue could still be revisited in the future.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Douglas separately stated he would grant review and summarily reverse, arguing any state or federal ban on obscenity is unconstitutional.
Opinions in this case
- 1.Opinion 8992775
- 2.Opinion 8992774
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “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?”