Johansen v. California
Headline: Refusal to review leaves a man's conviction for displaying allegedly obscene material intact while a Justice dissents, calling the California law unconstitutionally broad and urging reversal.
Holding:
- Leaves the individual’s conviction for exhibiting obscene materials in effect.
- Keeps California’s obscenity law available for use against similar displays.
- Signals ongoing disagreement that could prompt future challenges to the law.
Summary
Background
A person was convicted in the Whittier Municipal Court for displaying obscene materials under California Penal Code § 311.2 (West 1970). That conviction was affirmed in an unpublished decision by the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and the person asked the Supreme Court to review the case, but the Court denied review (certiorari denied).
Reasoning
The opinion contains no majority ruling on the law because the Court refused to hear the case. Justice Brennan filed a dissent from the denial and said he would reverse the conviction, stating the California statute is "unconstitutionally overbroad" and therefore invalid on its face, restating his view from Miller v. California. Justices Stewart and Marshall joined Brennan’s dissent, and he cited several earlier cases where he expressed similar views.
Real world impact
Because the Court refused to review the case, the lower courts’ judgment that the person is guilty remains in effect for this case. The Supreme Court’s denial does not resolve the constitutional question about the statute’s validity nationwide, and the law remains available for enforcement unless a later court rules otherwise. Justice Brennan’s dissent voices an alternative outcome but did not change the Court’s action.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan’s dissent, joined by two other Justices, argues the statute is facially invalid and highlights an ongoing disagreement among the Justices about the breadth of state obscenity laws.
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?