NEW ORLEANS BOOK MART, INC. v. U. S.(1974)
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1975.
See 419 U.S. 1116 .
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.
Petitioners were convicted in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana of transporting allegedly obscene materials in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1465, which provides in pertinent part:
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, 490 F.2d 73 (CA5 1974).
I adhere to my dissent in United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 147 (1973), in which, speaking of 18 U.S.C. 1462, which is similar in scope to 1465, I expressed the view that '[w] hatever the extent of the Federal Government's power to bar the distribution of allegedly [419 U.S. 1007 , 1008] obscene material to juveniles or the offensive exposure of such material to unconsenting adults, the statute before us is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.' Id., at 147-148. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 47 (1973), I would grant certiorari, and, since the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was rendered after Orito, reverse.* In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 494 (1973 ) (Brennan, J., dissenting).
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508 ; Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 43-48; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 , 70-73, would grant certiorari and summarily reverse.
Finally, it does not appear from the petition and response that the obscenity of the disputed materials was adjudged by applying local community standards. Based on my dissent in Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974), I believe that, consistent with the Due Process Clause, petitioners must be given an opportunity to have their case decided on, and introduce evidence relevant to, the legal standard upon which their convictions have ultimately come to depend. Thus, even on its own terms, the Court should vacate the judgment below and remand for a determination whether petitioners should be afforded a new trial under local community standards.
[ Footnote * ] Although four of us would grant and reverse, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.