Miller v. United States

Background

A group of people were convicted in federal court in the Central District of California for mailing and for transporting material described as obscene, under federal criminal statutes. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit first affirmed those convictions, the Supreme Court sent the case back for reconsideration after Miller v. California, and the Ninth Circuit again affirmed on remand.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to take up the case and denied further review, so the lower-court affirmance stands. A separate opinion explains that several Justices would have granted review and reversed the convictions. One Justice, Douglas, said he believes any state or federal ban or regulation of obscenity is unconstitutional and would have summarily reversed.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the defendants’ federal convictions and the Ninth Circuit’s decisions remain in place for now. The decision is not a ruling on the Constitutionality of obscenity rules; instead it leaves the existing prosecutions and convictions untouched. The opinions show clear disagreement among Justices about whether obscenity laws are permissible, indicating the legal position could change if the Court takes a future case with different votes.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissenting opinion by Justice Brennan, joined by two other Justices, says the convictions should be reviewed and reversed. Justice Douglas separately stated he would reverse because he views all obscenity regulation as barred by the Constitution.