MILLER v. U.S., 422 U.S. 1025 (1975)

U.S. Supreme Court

MILLER v. U.S. , 422 U.S. 1025 (1975)

422 U.S. 1025

Marvin MILLER et al.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 74-1228.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 16, 1975

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 the United States District Court for the Central District of California of mailing allegedly obscene matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1461, and of transporting such matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 431 F.2d 655 (1970). We granted the petition for certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). 413 U.S. 913 (1973). On remand, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit again affirmed the convictions.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regu-

Page 422 U.S. 1025 , 1026

lation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508-514 (1957); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 42-47 ( 1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 70-73 (1973), would grant certiorari and summarily reverse.

For the reasons stated in my dissent from the remand of this case, 413 U.S. 914, and because the present judgment was rendered after Miller, I would grant the petition and reverse.*

Footnotes

[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.




U.S. Supreme Court

MILLER v. U.S. , 422 U.S. 1025 (1975)

422 U.S. 1025

Marvin MILLER et al.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 74-1228.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 16, 1975

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 the United States District Court for the Central District of California of mailing allegedly obscene matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1461, and of transporting such matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 431 F.2d 655 (1970). We granted the petition for certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). 413 U.S. 913 (1973). On remand, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit again affirmed the convictions.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regu-

Page 422 U.S. 1025 , 1026

lation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508-514 (1957); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 42-47 ( 1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 70-73 (1973), would grant certiorari and summarily reverse.

For the reasons stated in my dissent from the remand of this case, 413 U.S. 914, and because the present judgment was rendered after Miller, I would grant the petition and reverse.*

Footnotes

[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.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.