Goldstein v. Virginia
Headline: Court declines to review and leaves in place a Virginia conviction under a broad obscenity law, affecting sellers of sexually explicit materials while three Justices say the law is unconstitutional and would reverse.
Holding:
- Leaves Virginia conviction intact and subject to state enforcement.
- Sellers of sexually oriented materials remain liable under the statute.
- Dissenting Justices would invalidate the statute, signaling possible future challenges.
Summary
Background
Petitioner was tried by a jury in the city of Norfolk, Virginia and convicted of selling obscene items under a Virginia law. The statute, Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-228, punishes publishing, selling, renting, lending, transporting in intrastate commerce, or distributing any obscene item and relies on the definition of "obscene" found in § 18.1-227. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction on July 11, 1972. This Court earlier granted review, vacated the state judgment and remanded for reconsideration after Miller v. California; the state court again affirmed and the Supreme Court then denied further review.
Reasoning
The main constitutional question presented was whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments allow the State to punish the sale of sexually oriented material described as "obscene." Justice Brennan, writing in dissent from the denial of review and joined by two other Justices, said that except for distribution to juveniles or exposure to unconsenting adults, the Constitution forbids government from wholly suppressing sexually oriented materials. Tested by that standard, Brennan concluded the Virginia statute is overbroad and invalid on its face, and he would reverse the conviction.
Real world impact
Because the Court denied review, the Virginia conviction remains in place and the state statute continues to be enforceable against sellers of such material. However, Brennan’s dissent says the law should be struck down in its current form, so sellers, courts, and prosecutors face competing views about the law’s validity. The denial is not a merits ruling by the full Court and the constitutional question could be revisited in other cases.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan’s dissent was joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall and argued for reversal as facially unconstitutional. Separately, Justice Douglas stated he would grant review and summarily reverse, taking the view that any state or federal ban or regulation of obscenity is forbidden by the Constitution.
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?