2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-8-2005 

# U SA v . Extre me As so c Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1555

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Extr e me As s oc Inc " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 26. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/26P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 05- 1555 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l ant

v.

E X T R E M E A S S O C IA T E S , IN C .; RO BE RT Z I CA RI , a k a RO B B L AC K; J AN ET RO M AN O, a k a LI ZZI E BO RD EN

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 03- cr - 00203 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e G aryL

. L anca s t er

A r gued O ct ober19, 2005 Be f o r e : S M I T H, S T AP L E T ON, a n d NYGAA RD ,

C i r cui tJudges2 ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber8, 2005)

C o u n se l: M aryB eth B uchana n ( A r gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 700 G r antSt r eet Sui t e 400 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C hr i s t i ne A

. Sanner O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 17 Sout h Par k R ow R oom A 330 E r i e, PA 16501

C ouns el f orAppel l ant H

. L oui s Si r ki n ( A r gued) J enni ferM

. K i ns l ey S irk in , P e n a les , S c h w a rtz 105 W es tFour t h St r eet Sui t e 920 C i nci nnat i , O H 45202- 2776

C ouns el f orAppel l ees

OP I NI ONW e h e re in a f ter re f e r to E x tre m e A ss o c iate s, In c ., M r. Z ica ri, 1 a n d M s . R o m a n o c o lle c tiv e ly as “ E x tr e m e A s s o c ia te s .” 3 S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge

. T hi s appea l r equi r es us t o deci de w hethert he D i s t r i ct C ou rterr ed b ydis m i ssi ng an indi ct m ent b ro u gh tagainst E xt r eme A s s oci at es , I nc. and i t s pr opr i et or s under 18 U

. S. C

. §§ 1 461 and 1465, w hi ch cr i m i nal i ze the comm er ci al di s t r i but i on o f o b sc e n e m a ter ials , o n th e g ro u n d th a t th o s e s ta tu tes v io late t he pr i vacyr i ght s of Ext r eme A s s oci at es ’ cus t om er s undert he F i ft h A m end m ent do ct ri ne o f subst anti ve d ue p rocess . B ecause w e concl ude that t he D i s t r i ct C our t i m pr oper l yset as i de a p p lica b le S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t w h ich h a s re p e a ted ly u p h e ld f e d e ra l sta tu tes re g u latin g th e d istrib u tio n o f o b sc e n ity i n the face of bo t h Fi rs tA m end m ent and sub st anti ve d ue p rocess a ttac k s, w e w ill re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt.
I.
A.
Th e p a r t i e s d o n o td i s p u t e t h e r e l e v a n tf a c t s . Ex t r e me A s s oci at es , I nc. i s a C al i forni a corpor at i on ow ned and oper at ed byR ober tZ i car i and J anetR om ano. E x tr em e A s s oci at es 1 m ai ntai ned a w ebsi t e t hroug h w hich i teng aged i n the b usi ness of p roduc ing, s el l i ng , and dis t ri bu t i ng ob scene v i deo t apes,F o r p u rp o se s o f th e m o tio n to d ism iss in th e D istric t C o u rt, 2 E x tre m e A ss o c iate s s tip u late d th a t th e m a ter ial a v a ilab le o n its w ebs i t e i s l egal l yobs cene . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 3

4 D V D s , and comput erfi l es i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce. 2
A s par tof an i nves t i gat i on, under coverU

. S. Post al I ns pect ors vi s i t ed the Ext r eme A s s oci at es w ebs i t e. T he Inspect ors foun d that t he w ebsi t e w as di vided i nto tw o sect i on s, o n e a c c e ss ib le to th e g e n e ra l p u b lic, a n d o n e a v a ilab le to m ember s onl y . M ember s w er e r equi r ed t o r eg i s t erand t o pay $89. 95 t o gai n acc es s t o t he w ebs i t e for ni nety day s . Fr om t he m e m b e rs -o n ly p o rt io n o f th e w e b s i te , a m e m b e r, in tera lia , c o u ld d o w n lo a d a n d v iew v id e o c lip s. T h e g e n e ra l p u b lic c o u ld or dert apes for del i very by m ai l t hr ough t he publ i c por t i on of the w eb sit e. In the c o u rs e o f th e inv esti g ati o n , P o stal Insp ec tors p u rchas ed ce r t ai n vi deot apes fr om t he publ i c s ect i on of the w e bs i t e , w hi c h Extr e me A s s oc i a t e s de l i ve r e d thr ou gh t he U

. S. m ai ls to unde r coveraddr es s es . I ns pect or s al s o j oi ned the m ember s - onl ys ect i on o f t he w ebs i t e and dow nl oaded a nd view ed seve ral video cl i ps. O n A ugus t6, 2003, a fe der al gr and j ur yr eturned a t encounti ndi ctm entagai ns tE xt r eme A s s oci at es . T he fi r s tcount w as a cons pi r acychar ge under18 U

. S. C

. § 371 char gi ng 3If tw o o r m o re p e rso n s c o n sp ire e ith e r to c o m m it a n yo f f e n se a g a in st th e U n ited S tate s, o r to defr aud the U ni t ed St at es , oranyagenc yt her eof i n an ym annerorforanypurpos e, and one or m or e o f s u c h p e r s o n s d o a n ya c tt o e f f e c tt he obj ectof the cons pi r acy , eac h s hal l be fi ned under t his t i t l e or i m pri soned no tm ore th an five y ears , orbot h. 18 U

. S. C

. § 371. 5 E xt r eme A sso ci at es w i t h cons pi r i ng t o vi ol at e 18 U

. S. C

. §§S e c tio n 1 4 6 1 sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: 4
E veryobs cen e, l ew d, l as ci vi ous , i ndece nt , fi l t hy orvi l e art i cl e, m at t er , thi ng, devi ce, ors ubs t ance

. . . [i ]s d ec l ar ed t o be nonmai l abl e mat t erand s hal l notbe conve y ed i n t he mai l s ordel i ver ed fro m an yp o st of

fice o r byan ylet ter carrier. W h o ev er kn o w ing ly u ses th e m ail s fo r the . . . d e liv e ry o f

a n yth in g d e c la re d b y t h i s s e c tio n . . . to b e n o n m a ilab le . . . sh a ll b e f in e d u n d e r th is t i t l e or im p r i s oned notm or e than fi ve y ear s , or bot h, fort he fi r s ts uch off ens e, and s hal l be fi ned undert hi s t i t l e ori m pri so n ed not m or e than t en y ea rs, o r bo th, fo r ea ch su ch o ff en se th ere af

ter. 18 U

. S. C

. § 1461. S e c tio n 1 4 6 5 sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: 5
W hoever know i ngl yt r ans por t s ort r avel s i n, or us es a fa ci l i t yorm eans of, i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn c o m m e rc e o r a n in te ra c tiv e c o m p u te r s e rv ic e . . . i n or aff ect i ng s uch comm er ce f ort he purpos e of s al e ordi s t r i but i on of a nyobs cene , l ew d, l a s c i v i o u s , o rf

i l t h yb o o k , p a mp h l e t , p i c tu r e , f i l m, paper , l et t er , w r i t i ng, pr i nt , s i l hou et t e, dr aw i ng, fi gur e, i m age, cas e, phonogr aph r ecor di ng, el ectr i cal t r ans cr i pt i on orot herar t i cl e ca pabl e of 6 1461 and 1465 bydi s t r i but i ng obs cene m at eri al t hr ough t he 4 5p roduci ng s ound oranyot herm at t erof i ndece nt o r im m o ra l ch a ra c ter , sh a ll b e f in e d u n d e r th is t i t l e ori m pr i s oned not m o re t han fi ve y ear s , or bot h. 18 U

. S. C

. § 1465. A l t ho ug h the G ov ernm e n tbroug ht no cha rges i n thi s case 6 un der 18 U

. S

. C

. § 1 46 2, E xtr em e A ssoci at es’ M oti on t o D i sm i ss at t acke d t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof thats t atut e as w el l , and the D i s t r i ctC our ts t ruck i tdow n. W e her ei naft er r efe r t o §§ 1461, 1462, and 1465 col l ect i vel yas t he “f eder al s t atutes r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of obs ceni t y ” ort he “s t atut es . ” S ec ti on 1462 sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: W hoeverbr i ngs i nt o t he U n it ed St at es . . . or know i ngl yus es anyexpr es s companyorcomm on carr i erorinterac t i ve comput ers ervi ce . . . for carr i age i n i nt er s t at e orforei gn comm er ce – ( a) anyobs ce n e, l ew d, l as ci vi ous , orfi l t hybook, pamphl et , pi ctur e, m ot i on- pi ctur e fi l m , paper, 7 m ai l s and o v er the I nt ernet
. T he r emai ni ng count s char ged s ub s t a n t i v e v i o l a t i o n s o f § § 1 4 6 1 a n d 1 4 6 5 a n d a l l eged p a rticu lar a c ts o f

d istrib u tin g o b sc e n e m a ter ials in in ter sta te c o m m e rc e v ia th e m a ils a n d th e In ter n e t. O n O ct ober9, 2003, E xt r eme A s s oci at es fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s t he i ndi ctm enton t he gr ound that the “fe der al obs ceni t ys t atut es ” vi ol at e t he r i ght t o pr i vacy pr ot ect ed byt he 6l et t er, w ri t i ng, pr i nt , orot herm at t erof i ndece nt char act er ; or( b) any obs cene , l ew d, l as ci vi ous , or fi l t hy phono gr aph r ecor di ng, el ect r i cal t r ans cr i pt i on, orot herar t i cl e o rt hi ng capa bl e of p ro d u c in g so u n d

. . . o r [ w ]h o e v e r k n o w in g ly t akes or r ece i ves , fr om s uch expr es s companyor ot hercomm on car ri erori nt er act i ve comput er s ervi ce . . . anym at t erort hi ng t he ca r r i age or im p o rta tio n o f

w h ich is h e re in m a d e u n law f u l – [s ] hal l be fi ned undert hi s t i t l e or i m pr i s oned for notm or e than fi ve y ear s , or bot h, fort he fi r s ts uch offe ns e and s hal l be fi ned undert hi s ti t l e or i m pr i s oned fornotm or e than t en y ear s , orb o t h, fo r ea ch su ch o ff

en se th ere af

ter. 18 U

. S. C

. § 1462. 8 D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of t he Fi fth A m endment

. A ft erbr i efi ng and a hea r i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdecl ar ed the fe dera l s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i buti on of obs ceni t yuncons t i tut i onal as a p p lied to E x tre m e A ss o c iate s an d d ism iss e d th e in d ictm e n t in a M e mor a n d u m a n d Or d e r o n J a n u a r y 2 0 , 2 0 05. T he G o v e rn m e n t ap p e a led th e d ism iss a l.
B.
T h e a n a lytica l p a th tak e n b yth e D istric t C o u rt in di s m i s s i ng t he i ndi ctm entw arr ant s par t i cul arat t ent i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our t began by concl udi ng t hat E xt r eme A s s oci at es had9 der i vat ive st andi ng t o chal l enge the fe der al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of obs ceni t y on behal f of i t s cus t om er s . T ur ni ng to t he mer i t s , t he C our tnot ed thati n Stanl ey v. G eorgia , 394 U

. S

. 55 7 (19 69 ), t he S up rem e C ou rtrecogn i zed the F i rs t A m endment r i ght of an i ndi vi dual t o pos s es s , r ead, obs erve, and rec eive o b sce n e m aterial s in the p riv ac yo f th at i n d ividu al’s home , a n d t h a ts u c h a r i g h ti s “ f u n d a me n t a l ” u n d e rt he C ons t i tut i on. B eca us e the Stanl ey C our t al s o s poke of a pr i vacy ri g h t hav ing to d o w ith S tanley’s ho m e, th e D istri ct C o u rt opi ned thatt he ca s e “r epr es ent s a uni que i nt erse ct i on betw een t he s ubs t ant i v e due pr oces s cl aus e’ s pr ot ect i on of per s onal l i ber t yand pr i vacyand the Fi r s t A m endment ’ s pr ot ect i on of an i ndi vi dual ’ s r i ghtt o r ece i ve, and cons i der , [s i c] i nform at i on and id e a s .”
T h e D istri ct C o u rt ac k n o w ledg ed that the S u p rem e C o u rt has r efus ed t o s t r i ke dow n t he fe der al statut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of obsce ni t y , ort o r ecogni ze, as a cor ol l aryt o t he r i ghtr ecogni zed i n Stanl ey , a F ir st A m e n d m e n t rig h t to d istri b u te o b sce n e m aterial

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt , h o w ev er, adopt ed the p o s i t i on advoca t ed byE xt r eme A s s oci at es t hat Stanl ey a n d i t s p ro g e n y , i.e ., U ni t ed Stat es v. R ei del , 40 2 U. S. 3 5 1 (1 9 7 1 ), U

n itedS tates v. T

h irt y-S ev en ( 3 7 ) P h otogr aphs , 402 U .S . 3 6 3 (1 9 7 3 ), Un i t e d S ta t e s v . 1 2 2 0 0

- F t

. R e e l s o f S u p e r8 mm F ilm , 4 1 3 U .S . 1 2 3 (1 9 7 3 ), U n itedS ta tes v . O rito , 413 U

. S. 139 ( 1973) , and P ar is A dul t Theatr e I v. Sl at on , 4 1 3 U

. S

. 4 9 (19 7 3 ), w er e dec i ded s ol el yon Fi r s t A m endment gr ounds r ather t han on pr i vacygr ounds undert he Subs t ant i ve D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. T heT o s ur vi ve s t r i cts crut i ny , a s t atut e mustbe narr ow l yt ai l or ed 7 to f u r t h e r a c o m p e llin g s ta te in te re s t. See , e. g. , G r is w old v. C onnect i cut , 3 8 1 U .S . 4 7 9 , 4 9 7 -9 8 (1 9 6 5 ) ( G o l d b e rg , J ., 10 D i s t r i ctC our tal s o agr eed w i t h E xt r eme A s s oci at es t hatt he a b o v e c a se s a re f

a c tu a lly d istin g u ish a b le f ro m th e c a se a t b a r in t hatt heydeal tei t herw i t h t he i m por t at i on of obs cene m at er i al fro m ab roa d o r i n v o lved m etho d s o f d istri b u ti o n that w ere m o re
“ p u b lic ” th a n th e In te rn e t tr a n s m is s io n s a t is s u e h e re . N ot i ng t hatE xt r eme A s s oci at es s ought t o chal l enge the s t atut es noto n it s o w n behal f buton behal f of the i ndi vi dual pr i vacyr i ght s of i t s cus t om er s , t he D i s t r i ct C our t concl uded that b e c a u se “ [ n ]e ith e r th e S u p re m e C o u rt n o r th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e T hir d C i rcui thas con si dered a sub st anti ve d ue p rocess chal l enge t o t he fe der al obs ceni t ys t atut es bya vendorar gui ng t hatt he l aw s p lace an uncons t i tut i onal bur den .

. . on an ind ivi d u a l’s fundament al r i ghtt o posses s and vi ew w hathe pl eas es i n hi s ow n hom e, ” Ext r eme A s s oci at es ’ cha l l enge w as notpr ecl uded byt he R e id e l/O rito lin e o f c a se s. A c c o rd in g to t he D i s t r i ctC our t , t he i ns t antcas e i s contr ol l ed i nstead by G r is w old v. C onnect i cut , 3 8 1 U .S . 4 7 9 (1 9 6 5 ), R oe v. W ade , 410 U

. S

. 1 1 3 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , a n d t h e i rp r o g e n y. B eca us e E xt r eme A s s oci at es bas ed i t s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s chal l enge on the exi s t ence of a “funda m ent al ” r i ght , t he D i s t r i ctC our t appl i ed s t r i cts crut i nyt o t he fe der al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of obsce ni t y . T he C our tconcl uded 7co n cu rri n g ). T o su rv iv e ra tio n a l b a sis re v iew , a s tatu te m u st b e ra tio n a lly 8 re la te d to th e a d v a n c e m e n t o f a le g itim a te s ta te in te re s t. See , e. g. , G ris w o ld , 3 8 1 U

. S

. at 50 4 (W h it e, J. , co n cu rri n g ). 11 t hat , under s uch hei ght ened s crut i ny , t he s t atut es coul d nots t and as a p p l i e d t o Ex t r e me As s o c i a t e s b e c a u s e t h e y wer e not n a rro w lyd ra w n to a d v a n c e a n yc o m p e lli ng go ve rn m e n t in ter e st. I ndeed, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed thatt he st atutes coul d notbe s u s t a i n e d e v e n u n d e rl e s s s t r i n g e n tr a t i o n a l b a s i s r e v i e w. 8
T he Di s t r i c tCou r to f

f e r e d t wo r e a s o n s f

o ri t s ru l i ng. F irst, th e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p rin c ip a l ra tio n a le under gi r di ng t he fe der al s t atut es r egul at i n g t he di s t r i but i on of obs ceni t y and t he l i ne of Supr eme Court deci s i ons u p h o ldi ng th e m is n o lon g er v ali d

. M o re sp ec ifi ca ll y , the D istri ct C o u rt s t at ed thataft ert he S u p rem e C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Law r ence v. Texas , 5 3 9 U .S . 5 5 8 (2 0 0 3 ), “ th e g o v e rn m e n t c a n n o lo n g e r re ly on t he adva ncementof a mora l code, i

. e. , pr event i ng cons ent i ng adu lts f ro m entert ai ning l ew d o r l asci vious tho ug hts , as a l egi t i m at e, l et al one a compel l i ng, s t at e i nt er es t
. ” A s s uch, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti ndi cat ed thatt he Law r ence d e c isio n se rio u sly underm i nes t he val i di t yof the s t atut es t hemsel ves , as w ell as ear l i erSupr eme C our tdeci s i ons uphol di ng t hos e s t atut es on p u b lic m o ra lityg ro u n d s . A p p ly in g th e a b o v e a n a ly sis to E xt r eme A s s oci at es ’ mot i o n t o d i s mi s s , t he C our tconcl uded that beca us e “uphol di ng t he publ i c s ens e of mora l i t yi s noteven a12 leg iti m a te s tate in ter e st th a t c a n ju stif y in f rin g in g o n e ’s lib e rty i nt er es tt o engage i n cons ens ual s exual conduct i n pr i vat e, ” s uch a “hi s t or i cal l yas s er t ed s t at e i nt er es t cert ai nl ycannotr i s e t o t he l evel of a c om pel l i ng i nt er es t , as i s r equi red ” unders t r i ct s c ru t i n y. S ec o n d , the D istri ct C o u rth eld th at th e G o v ern m en t’ s al t ernat i ve as s er t ed i nt er es t s , i

. e. , put at i vel y non- m or al i t ybas ed i nt er es t s , w er e notnarr ow ly advanced byt he compl et e ban on di s t ri b u ti on of obs cene m at er i al s embodi ed i n t he fe der al statu te s reg u lat ing the d istri b u ti o n o f o b sce n ity . T h e C o u rt s t at ed that , ow i ng t o t he char act er of t he I nt ernetgener al l yand t h e p a r t i c u l a r p r o t e c t i v e t e c h n o l o g i e s e mp l o y e d b yEx t r e me A s s o c i a t e s , th e Gov e r n me n t ’ s a s s e r t e d i n t e r e s t s o f p r o t e c t i ng c h ild re n a n d u n w itt in g a d u lts f ro m e x p o su re to o b sc e n ityc o u ld be ac compl i s hed bym eans l es s r es t ri ct i ve than a t ot al ban on d i s t r i b u t i o n . T h e Co u r t a d d e d t h a t b e c a u s e t h e l a t t e r o f t h e t wo i nt er es t s w as l ikely m ot i vat ed, atl eas tpar t i al l y , byr egar d for p u b l i c mo r a l i t y , i two u l d f a i l e v e n r a t i o n a l b a s i s r e v i e w. I n s um , t he D i s t r i ct C our trul ed thatbeca us e Law r ence inv ali dat ed the pr i m aryr at i onal e fort he fe der al s t atut es reg u lat ing the d istri b u ti o n o f o b sce n ityan d the G o v ern m en t’ s cit ed au tho ri ty u p h o lding them , an d b ec au se th e G o v ern m en t’ s r emai ni ng as s er t ed int er es t s , even i f compel l i ng, w er e not n arro w lyad v an ce d b y th o se statutes, th e statutes w ere uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o E xt r eme A s s oci at es on behal f of i t s cus t om er s . T he D i s t r i ctC ourtdi s m i s s ed the i ndi ctm enton13 t hat basi s. II.
A.
T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d o rig in a l ju risd ictio n o v e r th is c rim in a l ac tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . W e e x e rc ise a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on overt he fi nal j udgm ent of a di s t r i ctcour tunder28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. W hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed t he i ndi ctm ent agai ns t E xt r eme A s s oci at es i s a ques t i on of l aw o f w h ic h o u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. U ni t ed Stat es v. Ledes m aC u e sta , 3 4 7 F .3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. D eL a u re n tis , 2 3 0 F

. 3 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ).
B.
A s a p reli m inarym att er, w e ag ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt t hatE xt r eme A s s oci at es has der i vat i ve st andi ng t o chal l enge the cons t i tut i onal i tyof the fe d era l st atutes re g u lat ing the d istri b u t i on o f o b s c en ityo n b eh alf o f it s cu stom ers. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt cons i s t ent l yhas uphel d t he abi l i t y of vendor s t o chal l enge the co n sti tuti o n ali ty o f statutes o n their cu stom ers’ b eh alf w h ere th o s e statutes a re d ir ec ted a t th e a cti v ityo f th e v en d o rs. In C ar ey v . P opul at i on Ser vi ces I nt er nat i onal , 431 U

. S. 678, 682- 84 ( 1977) , t he C our t hel d t hata mai l

- or ders el l erof non- m edi cal c o n tra c e p tiv e s h a d sta n d in g to a rg u e th a t a s tate sta tu te pr ohi bi t i ng t he di s t r i but i on of non-medi cal contr ace pt i ves14 violated its cu stom ers’ su b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess righ ts t o u se s uch contr ace pt i ves . A l s o, i n C r aig v. B or en , 429 U

. S. 190, 195 ( 1976) , t he C our tuphel d t he abi l i t yof a be ers el l ert o chal l enge a s t at e s t atut e on beha l f of c er t ai n under age c us t om er s . T he C our t not ed t hat “vendor s and thos e i n l i ke pos i t i ons have be en u n if o rm lyp e rm it ted to re sis t ef f o rts a t re stric tin g th e ir oper at i ons byact ing as advoca t es of the r i ght s of thi r d par t i es w ho s eek acc es s t o t hei rm arketorfunct i on. ” I d. A c c o r d i n g l y, E xt r eme A s s oci at es has s t andi ng t o chal l enge the fe der al s t at u t e s r e g u l a t i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f o b s c e n i t y a s v i o l a t i v e of t he sub st anti ve d ue p rocess ri gh t s of i t s cust om ers . III

. I n i t s M emora ndum , t he D i s t r i ctC our t not es br i efl y , but neverdi r ect l yaddr es s es , t h e G overnm ent ’ s cont ent i on t hat “b e c a u s e t h e f

e d e r a l o b s c e n i t ys t a tu t e s h a v e wi t h s t o od co n sti tuti o n al a tta c k fo r m o re tha n thirty -five y ea rs, this co u rt l acks t he author i t yt o fi nd thatt heyar e uncons t i tut i onal

. ” The G overnm ent ’ s br i ef on appea l r ai s es t he s ame i s s ue byas s er t i ng, es s ent i al l y , t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t err ed bygr ant i ng r el i ef w hi ch eff ect i vel yover tur ns appl i cabl e Supr eme C our tpr ece d ent s on t he gr ound t hat t hos e pr ece dent s have been underm ined or i m pl i ci t l yoverrul ed bya s ubs equen t Supre m e C our tdeci s i on. W e a g re e w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t th a t t h e D is trict C o u rt w a s in err or , and w e concl ude t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s vi ol at i on of the p rin c ip le a rticu late d b e lo w re q u ire s re v e rsa l.15 A.
I n R odri gu ez de Q uij as v. Sh ea rs on / A m eri can E

xpress I nc. , 4 9 0 U .S

. 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (1 9 8 9 ), th e S u p re m e C o u r t e x p licitly admoni s hed l ow er cour t s t hat “[i ] f a pr ece dentof thi s C our thas di r ectappl i cat i on i n a cas e, y et appea r s t o r es ton r eas ons re jec ted in so m e o th e r lin e o f d e c isio n s, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls sh o u ld f o llo w th e c a s e w h ic h d ire c tlyc o n tro ls, lea v in g to th is C our tt he pr er ogat i ve of overrul i ng i t s ow n deci s i ons . ” See a l so id

. (p oint i ng ou t speci fi cal l y t hat t he C ou rt of A pp eal s, “on its ow n author i t y , ” s houl d not have “t aken t he s t ep of r enounci ng” a pr evi ous Supr eme C ou rt d eci s i on i nt erpr et i ng t he Secur i t i es A c t, e v e n a s the C o u rt itse lf g o e s o n to o v e rru le th e d e c isio n in t hatverycas e)

. T he C our tr ei t er at ed i t s pos i t i on i n A gos t i ni v. Fel t on , 521 U

. S. 203, 237 ( 1997) , s t at i ng “[ w ]e do not a c k n o w led g e , a n d w e d o n o t h o ld , th a t o th e r co u rts s h o u ld concl ude ourm or e r ece ntcas es have, byi m pl i cat i on, overrul ed an ea r l i erpr ece dent. ” I d. T h e C o u rt th e n p ro c e e d e d to

“ r e a f f i r m” t h e p r e c i s e l a n g u a g e q u o t e d a b o v e f r o m R odr iguez . I d. T he C our texpl ai ned t h at “ [a] dher ence t o t hi s t eac hi ng by t he D i s t r i ctC our tand C our tof A ppeal s i n t hi s l i t i gat i on does not i n s u l a t e a l e g a l p r i n c i p l e o n whi c h t h e y r e l i e d fr om our rev iew to d eterm ine its co n ti n u ed v it ali ty , ” a s low er c o u rt s are fr ee t o cons i der t he i s s ues and pr es erve t hem for t he C our teven a s th e yo b e yc o n tr o llin g p re c e d e n t. I d. at237- 38. I n fac t , even as t he C our ti n A gos t i ni concl uded thati t s ow n adher ence t o t he o ld p rec ed en t “w o u ld un d o u b tedly w o rk a ‘m an ifest i n justi ce ’” in li g h t of

lat er d ec isio n s , it em p h asize d that “the tr ial co u rt16 act ed w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on i n ent er t ai ni ng t he mot i on [r eques t i ng re lie f u n d e r t h e n e w e r c a s e s ] w ith s u p p o rt in g a lle g a tio n s , b u t it w as al s o cor r ect t o r ecogni

z e thatthe m ot i on had t o be deni ed unl es s and unt i l this C our tr ei nt er pr et ed the bi ndi ng pr ece dent .” Id

. at 23 6 , 2 3 8 (em p h asis ad d ed ).
O urow n cas es s t eadf

as t l yappl yt he A gos t i ni d o c t r i ne. See Un itedStat es v. Singl et ary , 2 6 8 F

. 3 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 5 (3d C ir

. 2001) ( quot i ng A gos t i ni a n d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t“ [ w ] e h a v e a l w a ys so u g h t to a d h e re stric tlyto th a t co u n se l”) ; U n ited Stat es v. A buhour an , 1 6 1 F .3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 5 n .9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); Moldonado v. H ous t oun , 1 5 7 F .3 d 1 7 9 , 1 9 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); U ni t ed St at es v. B i s hop , 6 6 F .3 d 5 6 9 , 5 8 8 n .2 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); Sw i n R es our ce S y s., In c . v . L

y c o m in gC o u n ty , 8 8 3 F

. 2 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 9 ). I n fac t , w e emphas i zed i n Sing letary t hateven w her e a l ow er cour t ’ s analy ti cal pos i t i on has m er i t , t he obl i gat i on t o fol l ow appl i cabl e Supr eme C our tpr ece denti s i n no w ayabr ogat ed: even i f t her e w er e m er i t t o Si ngl et ary ’ s ar gum ent t hatt he Supr eme C our t ’ s [l at er ] deci s i ons have s om ehow w eake ned the pr ece dent i al val ue of [ t he ol dercas e] , w e maynotpr eci pi t at e i t s d ec li n e. Th e Su p r e me Cou r ti t s e l f h a s a d mon i s h e d l o wer c o u rts to f

o llo w its d ire c tlya p p lica b le p re c e d e n t, ev en i f thatpr ece dentappea r s w eake ned by p ro n o u n c e m e n ts in s u b s e q u e n t d e c is io n s . . . . Singl et ary , 2 6 8 F

. 3 d at 20 5

. W e r e a f f ir m o u r i n tent to ad h ereA lth o u g h it d o e s n o t d e a l d ir e c tly w ith th e q u e s tio n , Stanl ey 9 i t s el f, byi m pl i cat i on, r ecogni zed the cons t i tut i o n ali t yof the fede r al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of obsce ni t y even a s it rec o g n ize d th e rig h t to p o ss e ss a n d o b se rv e o b sc e n e m a ter ials in th e h o m e . See St a n l ey , 394 U

. S. at567- 68 ( i ndi cat i ng t hat e v e n i f p r o h i b i t i n g o b s c e n i t y pos s e s s i on is n e c e ss a ryto f a c ili tate the en forcem en t o f

sta tu to rysc h e m e s p ro h ib iti n g it s dis tr i but i on , th e rig h t to p o ss e ss m a ter ials w ith in th e p riv a c y o f th e h o m e is s o i m por t antt hat“i t s r es t r i ct i on m aynot be j us t i fi ed byt he nee d t o eas e the admi ni s t r at i on of o th e r wis e v a l i d c r i mi n a ll a ws . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). 17 st ric tlyto th e p rin c ip le a rticu late d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt in A gos t i ni

. I tfol l ow s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o w as bound by th a t p rin c ip le a s it c o n sid e re d E x tre m e A s so c iate s’ m o tio n to d ism iss th e in d ictm e n t.
B. In th is ap p ea l, then , w e m u st de cide w h eth er R ei del ’s pr ogeny , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tfound t o be underm i ned by Law r ence , w as “di rect l yapp l i cable” t o E xtr em e A ssoci ates’ mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s t h e i n d i c t me n t
. As a n a n a l yt i c a l ma t t e r , we ans w ert hatques t i on in the affi r m at i ve. I n t he br oades tand m os tobvi ous s ens e, t he Supr eme C our thas expli cit l yand re p e a ted ly , in d e c isio n s re n d e re d p o st- Stanl ey , uphel d t he 9 cons t i tut i onal i t yof fe der al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of o b s c e n ity. See Rei del , 4 0 2 U .S . at 3 5 1 ; Th i r t y - S e v en P hot ogr aphs , 4 0 2 U .S . at 3 6 3 ; O rito , 4 1 3 U .S . at 1 3 9 ; 12 200-18 F t. R e e ls , 413 U

. S. at123.
Fur t herm or e, t he above cas es cons i s t ent l yuphol d t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof the s t atut es as appl i ed t o t he r i ghtr ecogni zed i n Stanl ey . See , e. g. , Thi r t y- Seve n P hot ogr aphs , 402 U

. S. at 3 7 6 ; O rito , 413 U

. S. at141. T he C our thas s t at ed cl earl yt hat t he r i ghtr ecogni zed i n Stanl ey t o pos s es s o bs cene m at er i al w ith in th e h o m e (a n d , b ylo g ica l im p lica tio n , the a b ili tyto exer ci s e thatr i ght ) “does notm ean” t hatthere is a corr el at i ve ri g h t to d is tr ib u te th a t m a te ri a l, Thi r t y- Seve n P hot ogr aphs , 402 U

. S. at376, t hati t“does not r equi r e” the C our tt o fas hi on a r i ght to d is tr ib u te , R ei del , 402 U

. S

. at 3 56, and thatt he Stanl ey “‘righ t t o rec eive ’ is nota r igh t to the ex is t ence of m odes of d istrib u tio n o

f o b sc e n ity , w hi ch t he St at e coul d des t r oyw i t hout ser i ou s ri sk of infri ng i ng on t he p ri vacyof a m an’s tho ug hts ; r ather , i t i s a r i ght t o a pr ot ect i ve zone ens ur i ng t he fr eedom of a man’ s i nnerli fe

. . . . ” I d. at359 ( H ar l an, J

. , concurr i ng) (em p h asis ad d ed ).
I tbear s not i ng as w el l t hat i n m or e t han one of t he ca s es f o l l o w i ng Stanl ey , the C o u rt h e a rd a n d re jec ted th e a rg u m e n ts o f d iss e n tin g Ju stic e s th a t p ro sc ri b in g d istrib u tio n o r p riv a te t r ans por t at i on of obs cene m at er i al s evac uat ed the Stanl ey r i ght o f a n ys ig n if

ic a n t m e a n in g . See Thi r t y- Seve n P hot ogr aphs , 402 U .S . at 3 8 1 (H a r la n , J., d iss e n tin g ) (a rg u in g th a t th e rig h t to pos s es s and r ead o b sce ne mat er i al athom e “i s hol l ow i ndeed” w ith o u t s o m e rig h t to tra n sp o rt it); O rito , 413 U

. S. at14 ( D ougl as , J

. , di s s ent i ng) ( as s er t i ng t hatt her e i s no dis t i nct i onT h e D i stri ctC ou rtheld, and E xtr em e A ssoci at es ar gu es, 10 f u rth e r, th a t ce rta in k e y c a se s a re m e a n in g f u llyf a c tu a lly d is t in g u is h a b le . W e re je c t th a t a rg u m e n t. See s e c tio n II I.C ., i nfr a . 19 betw een pri v ate pos s es s i on and pr i vat e ca r r i age of obs cene m at er i al , and ar gui ng t hatuphol di ng t he fe der al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of ob s ceni t ynece s s i t at es overrul i ng Stanl ey ).
M os t r el evant t o t hi s appea l , t he Supr eme C our tal s o has uphel d t he fe der al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of obs ceni t ys peci fi cal l yi n l i ghtof the C our t ’ s br oaderpr i vacy ju risp ru d e n c e . T h e D istric t C o u r t s tate d th a t Stanl ey a n d its p ro g e n yd o n o t c o n tr o l th e E x tre m e A ss o c iate s’ m o tio n to d ism iss b e c a u se th o se c a se s w e re a ll d e c id e d m e re lyo n th e b a sis th a t o b sc e n ity is no t p ro tec ted u n d e r th e F irs t A m e n d m e n t. E x tre m e A ss o c iate s a rg u e s th a t R ei del ’s p ro g e n y d e a lt o n lyw ith a “Fi r s t A m endment conce pt of pri vacy . ” A s s uch, t he ar gum ent runs, t he p i vo t al ob sceni t ycases i gn ored sub st ant i ve du e pr ocess anal y s i s of the “pr i vat e pos s es s i on” r i ghtr ecogni zed i n Stanl ey a n d , t h e r e f

o r e , d i d n o tg o v e r n t h e mo t i o n t o d i s m i s s . We 10 dis agree. Iti s tru e th a t non e of the m aj or cases use the p hrase “su b stan tiv e d u e p roc ess” in the irh o lding s, b u t i t i s clea r – par t i cul ar l yi n O rito and P a ris A du l tT hea tre – that the C o u rt anal y zed the fe der al s t atut es r egu lat i ng t he di s tr i but i on of o b sc e n ityu n d e r b o th th e p rin c ip les a n d p re c e d e n ts th a t, a c c o rd in g to th e D istric t C o u rt a n d E x tre m e A ss o c iate s, sh o u ld20 co n tr o l this c ase . M o reo v er, w h ere su ch an aly sis do es a p p ea r, t he C our thas found chal l enges t o t he s t atut es under t he gene r al cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o pr i vacyunavai l i ng. I n O rito , forexampl e, t he def endantw as pr os ecut ed u n d e r § 1 4 6 2 f

o r p r iv a telytra n sp o rtin g o b sc e n e m a ter ial in i nt er s t at e comm er ce ( t o w i t , know i ngl y carr y i n g o b s cene m at er i al s i n hi s pr i vat e l uggage on a dom es t i c comm er ci al fl i ght )

. O r i t o “moved t o di s m iss the i ndi ctm enton t he gr ound th a t th e sta tu te v io late d b o th h is F irst and Ninth A m endment r i ght s . ” O rito , 413 U

. S. at 140 ( emphasi s added)

. I n di s m i s s i ng t he i ndi ctm ent , t he Su pr eme C our texpl ai ned thatt he D i s t r i ct C o u r t h a d m i s i n t e rp r e t e d n o to n l y Stanl ey , butal s o G ris w o ld to es t abl i s h cons t i tuti onal pr ot ect i on fort he “non- publ i c” tr a n s p o rt a tio n o f

o b s c e n e m a te ri a l. I

d. at140- 41.
A s par tof i t s anal y si s , t he O rito C our tnot ed thatt he C ons t i tut i on “ext ends s peci al s afe guar ds t o t he pr i vacyof the hom e, j us t as it p r ot ect s ot hers peci al pr i vacyr i ght s s uch as t hos e of mar r i age, pr ocr eati on, m ot herhood, chi l d r ear i ng, and educa t i on. ” I

d. at 14 2

. T o su p p o rtthat a s s e rt io n , the C o u rt c ite d , in tera lia , E isenstad tv. B aird , 405 U

. S. 438 ( 1972) , and G ris w o ld

. I

d. T he C our tel ect ed, ful l ycons ci ous of the r i ght r ecogni zed i n Stanl ey , t o excl ude tr ans por t i ng obs cene m at er i al in i n t e r s ta te c o m m e rc e f ro m “ s u c h s p e c ia l c o n s id e ra tio n .” O r ito , 413 U

. S. at142. I n up h o l di ng t he s t atut e ati s s ue, t he C our tpoi nt ed o u t tha tt he D i s t r i ctC our thad “e r r ed i n s t r i ki ng d o w n 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 6 2 a n d d ism iss in g th e in d ictm e n t on theseP aris A du l tT hea tre deal tw i th a s t at e stat u te , s o t he 11 o p e ra tiv e d u e p ro c e ss p r o v isio n w a s th a t o f th e F o u rte e n th A m endment , r athert han thatof the Fi fth A m end m entati s s ue her e. 21 ‘ pr i vacy ’gr ounds

. ” Id

. at 14 1 (em p h asis a d d e d ). T h e C o u rt al so stat ed – agai n, ful l ycons ci ous of and ha vi ng m ade r efe r ence t o t he r i ghtar t i cul at ed i n Stanl ey – t hati n i t s deci s i on t o uphol d bans on t r ans p o rt i ng obs cene m at er i al w i t hi n t he stre a m o f

c o m m e r c e , “n o c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted p riv a c yis i nvol ved. ” I

d. at143.
S im ilarly , in P aris A du l tT hea tre , th o u g h th e C o u rt d e a lt w ith o b sce n ity in a “p lace o f p u b li c ac co m m o d ati o n ” (a the ater), m uch of the C our t ’ s anal y s i s deal ts quar el yw i th t he gene r al cons t i tut i onal r i ghtto p ri vacyas i tr el at es t o t he Stanl ey rig h t. T he C our tfi r s t expl ai ned the s cope of t he r i ghti n ques t i on by i ndi cat i ng t hati t s “pr i or deci s i ons r ecogni zi ng a r i ghtt o pr i vacy guar ant eed by the Fourt eenth A m endm ent ” r efe r r ed t o a r i ght 11 t hat“enc om pas s es and pr ot ect s t he per s onal i nt i m aci es of the h o m e , the f

a m ily , m a rria g e , m o th e rh o o d , p ro c re a tio n a n d c h ild r ear i ng. ” P aris A du l tT

hea tre , 4 1 3 U

. S

. at 65 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T o s uppor tt hi s p r o p o s i t i o n , th e C our tci t ed E is ens tadt , G ris w o ld and Stanl ey . I

d. T h e C our tnot ed the l egal l yoper at i ve di ffe r ence b etw een the Stanl ey r i ghtand thos e der i vi ng fr om G ris w o ld and R oe : T h e p r o tec tio n a f

f o rd e d b yS tan ley .

. . is22 r est ri cted t o a pl ace , t he home. I n contr as t , t he c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d p r i v a c y o f f a m i l y, m a rr ia g e , m o th e rh o o d , p ro c re a tio n , an d c h ild r ear i ng i s notj us tconce r ned w i t h a part i cul ar pl ace , butw i t h a pr ot ect ed i nt i m at e r el at i ons hi p. S u ch p rot e c ted p ri v ac yex tend s to the d o ctor’s offi ce, t he hos pi t al , t he hot el r o o m , oras otherw i s e r equi r ed t o s afe guar d t he r i ghtof i nt i m acyi nvol ved.
I d. at66 n. 13 ( ci t i ng R oe and G ris w o ld).
T h e C o u rt a p p lied th e a b o v e a n a lys is in re a c h in g its re su lt:
If

o b sc e n e m a ter ial . . . c a rrie d w ith it a

‘ p e n u m b r a ’ o f

c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d p r i v a c y, th is C o u rt w o u ld n o t h a v e f o u n d it n e c e ss a ryto deci de S t anl ey on t he narr ow bas i s of the ‘ pr i vacy of the home , ’ w hi ch w as har dl ym or e than a re a f f ir m a tio n th a t a m a n ’s h o m e is h is c a s tle

. . . . M or eover , w e have decl i ned t o equat e t he pr i vacy of the home r el i ed on i n St anl eyw i t h a ‘ zone’ of ‘priva cy ’ that fo ll o w s a d istri b u tor or a cons um er of o bscene m at eri al s w herever he go es. P aris A du l tT

hea tre , 413 U

. S. at66 ( ci t i ng Stanl ey , O rito ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). F inally , su m m arizing th e c a s e , the C o u rt23 in d ica ted it h a d “ re a f

f irm e d [ its] h o ld in g [ ]” th a t “ c o m m e rc e in o b s c e n e m a t e r i a l i s u n p r o t e c t e d b y any c o n sti t ut i onaldoctr i ne of pr i vacy . ” I

d. at69 ( ci t i ng O rito , R ei del , Thi r t y- Seve n P ho t og raph s and 1 2 2 0 0 -F t. R e e ls ) (em p h asis ad d ed ).
W e conc l ude thatt he Supr eme C our thas anal y zed a nd uphel d t he fe der al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of obs cenityundert he cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o pr i vacyembodi ed col l ect i vel yi n t he Fi r s t , N i nt h, and F o u r t eenth ( t hus al s o t he Fi fth) A m endment s , as w el l as t he G ris w o ld l i ne of de ci s i ons t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t as s er t ed s houl d contr ol t hi s cas e. T he fa ct t hat s uch analy si s has nev er b e e n app l i ed w i t hin the p reci se s cena r i o out li n ed b y t he D i s t r i ctC our t– i

. e. , us e of the t al i s m ani c phr as e “s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s ” i n t he cont ext of a vendo r p roce edi ng underder i vat i ve s t andi ng on behal f of a cons um er ’ s r i ghtt o pr i vat el ypos s ess obs cene m at er i al – does n o t neg ate the b ind ing p rec ed en ti al v alue o f the S u p rem e C o u rt cas es empl oy i ng t hatanal y s i s . T he C our t ’ s anal y s i s need notbe so sp e c if ic in o rd e r to lim it a d istric t co u rt’s p re ro g a ti v e to over tur n an ent i r e ca t egoryof fe der al s t atut es , even as appl i ed t o par t i cul ardefe ndant s , bas ed on specul at i on abouta l at er deci s i on t hatfai l s even t o m ent i on t hos e st atut es . T he C our thas cons i der ed the feder al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of o b sc e n ityin th e c o n tex t o f th e b ro a d e r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to pr i vacyand uphel d t hem. T hats uch ana l y s i s w as conduct ed a b se n t it s c o n stitu tio n a l b r a n d n a m e d o e s n o t n e g a te its pr ece dent i al val ue.24 I n s um, t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s Or d e rg r a n t i n g Ex t r e me As s o c i a t e s ’ mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s t h e i n d i c t me n t , a s we l l a s Ex t r e me A ss o c iate s’ b rie f

o n a p p e a l, d e a l w ith th e sa m e sta tu tes u p h e ld re p e a ted ly b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt. T h e ya ss e rt (a lb e it d e riv a tiv e ly ) th e sa m e rig h t re f e re n c e d a n d a n a ly z e d in m u lti p le S u p r e me Co u r td e c i s i o n s

– a l l o f wh i c h d e c l i n e d t o s t r i k e d o wn a n y p a r to f

a n y s t a tu t e r e g u l a t i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f o b s c e n i t y . Fi nal l y , t he Supr eme C our thas a n aly zed a nd uphel d t he co n sti tuti o n ali tyo f th e f ed era l st atut es r egul at i ng the di s tr i but i on of obs ceni t y s peci fi cal l y i n l i ghtof the C our t ’ s br oaderr i ght

- t opr i vacyj ur i s prudence

. C.
W e n o w turn to w h ethe r R e id e l a n d i t s p r o g e n y , whi ch w e f in d a n a lytica llya p p o site , are m e a n in g f u llyf a c tu a lly d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

r o m t h e c a s e a tb a r . I f t h e r e i s a m at er i al f a c tu a l d istin c tio n b e tw e e n th e in sta n t c a se a n d th e p u tativ e ly co n tr o ll ing p rec ed en t, an aly sis un d er A gos t i ni is w h o lly i nappr opr i at e. W her e, as h ere , an “a s appl i ed” c ons t i tut i onal c h a llen g e , rath e r th a n a f a c ial o n e , is b e f

o r e th e c o u rt, th is an alyti ca l ste p is of

p arti cu lar i m p o rt an ce . T h e D istri ct C o u rt concl uded, and E xt r eme A s s oci at es now ar gues on appea l , t hat t he keycas es i n t he R ei del lin e c a n b e d istin g u ish e d o n th e ir fac t s i nas m uch as ( 1) none of the keycas es addr es s s ubs t ant i ve d u e p ro c e ss p riv a c yrig h ts; (2 ) c e rta in o f th e c a se s d e a lt excl us i vel yw i t h bor derand i m por t at i on i s s ues ; and ( 3) none of t he pr evi ous obs ceni t yd e c i s i o n s i n v o l v e d tr ans m i s s i ons overt heW e fi nd es peci al l y puzzl i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on 12 th a t O rito is “d ist ing u isha b le o n [it s] fa cts. ” T h e D istri ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t O rito w as fac tual l ydi s t i ngui s habl e bec aus e the C o u rt i n t hatcas e “he l d t hatt he obs ceni t ys t atut es coul d be ju s tif ie d a s a m e th o d o f

p ro te c tin g th e p u b lic m o ra lity, a j us t i fi cat i on no l onger val i d aft er L aw r ence . ” T hatobs ervat i on fai l s t o di s t i ngui s h O rito factuall y i n any w ay , and , as w e dis cuss bel ow , i s anal yt i cal l yi r r el evantt o t he di s pos i t i on of thi s cas e. 25 I nt ernet
. W e ar e unper s uaded bythes e ar gum ent s , how ever , and w e c o n c lu d e th a t O rito and t he ot her keycas es di s cus s ed above a re su f f icie n tlysim ilar to th e in sta n t ca se to g o v e rn it. 12
Fi r s t , as di s cus s ed atl ength i n s ect i on I I I

. B

. , t he D i s t r i ct C our t M emora ndum adopt ed E xt r eme A s s oci at es ’ pos i t i on t hat a l l o f t h e r e l e v a n to b s c e n i t yc a s e s f o l l ow i ng Stanl ey are di s t i ngui s habl e i nas m uch as none of thos e ca s es i nvol ved a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s pr i v acychal l enge a gai ns tt he fe der al sta tu tes re g u latin g th e d istrib u tio n o f o b sc e n ityo r e n g a g e d in such p ri vacyanaly si s. A s w e hav e i nd i cat ed, w e adjudg e t ho se as s er t i ons t o be i ncorr ect , and w e nee d notdi s cus s t hem further her e. Second, bot h t he D i s t r i ctC our tand Ext r eme A s s oci at es at t empt t o di s t i ngui s h 12 20 0-F t

. R eel s and Thi r t

y- Seve n P ho t og raph s o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e yd e a l ex c lu siv e lyw ith i m por t at i on and borderi s s ues , ar gui ng t hats uch a c ont ext n e c e ss a rilytrig g e rs a d if f e re n t an a lytica l f

ra m e w o r k

. T h isW e not e t hat E xt r eme A s s oci at es ’ I nt ernetar gum ent 13 nece s s ar i l yfai l s t o di s t i ngui s h t h ree of the count s of the i ndi ctm enti nvol ved i n t hi s cas e. T hr ee c oun ts al l ege that E xt r eme A s s oci at es di s t r i but ed obs cene m at er i al s t hr ough t he 26 argu m en t i s a cl os ercal l , buti ti s al s o unavai l i ng. T hough im p o rta tio n iss u e s d o p ro v id e th e f a c tu a l b a c k d ro p o f

b o th cas es , bot h cas es engage i n s t andar d Stanl ey anal y s i s and ar e at lea st g e n e ra ll y c o n c e r n e d w it h C o n g r e s s ’ s a b il it y, u p h e ld in b o th c a se s, to b a r tra n sp o rta tio n o f o b sc e n e m a ter ials in th e c h a n n e ls o f c o m m e rc e . See 1 2 2 0 0

- F t. R e e ls , 4 1 3 U .S . at 1 2 8 ; Thi r tySeve n P hot ogr aphs , 4 0 2 U. S

. a t3 7 6

. Ata l l e v e n t s , e v e n i f we w e r e to g ra n t th a t 1 2 2 0 0 -F t. R e e ls and Thi r t y- Seve n P hot ogr aphs a re re le v a n tly d is tin g u is h a b le , O rito still d e a ls squar el yw i t h Stanl ey , t h e f e d e r a l s t a tu t e s r e g u l a t i n g t he distrib u t i on of o bscenity , pri vacy , and t he ab i l i t yof C on gress c o n stitu tio n a llyto b a n a n yp re se n c e o f o b sc e n e m a ter ial in d o m e s tic in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . O rito a lo n e p ro v id e s d ire c tly a p p lica b le p re c e d e n t as to th e in sta n t ap p e a l.
Fi nal l y , E xt r eme A s s oci at es a r g u e s th a tth e r e l e v a n tcas es ar e di s t i ngui s habl e beca us e t hey “w er e al l deci ded befo re the adventof the I nt erne t, ” s ugges t i ng t hat“the comm er ci al t ransport at i on of o bscenityco n si dered b yt he C ou rt[i n those cas es ] w as of a more publ i c var i etyt han the I nt ernetcomm er ce ati s s ue her e. ” A s s uch, “[t ] he conc ern forcomm uni t ydece ncy and or dert hatar os e i n [the otherobs ceni t ycas es ] i s i r r el evant t o t hi s pr os ecut i on. ” W e dec l i ne t o j oi n ap pel l ees i n t hat 13U ni t ed St at es m ai l

. I dent i cal conduct w as ati s s ue i n t he ca s e of U ni t ed Stat es v. R ei del , 402 U

. S. 351 ( 1971)

. Seven of the t en c o u n ts in th e p re se n t in d ic tm e n t, ho w e v e r, d o p e rta in to d istrib u tin g v id e o c lip s to h o m e c o m p u ter s th ro u g h th e In ter n e t. 27 anal yt i cal l eap. T he mer e fa ct , w i t houtm or e, tha tt he i ns t ant p ro se c u tio n in v o lv e s In ter n e t tran sm iss io n s is n o t en o u g h to re n d e r a n e n tire lin e o f S u p re m e C o u rt d e c isio n s in a p p lica b le gi ven thei r anal yt i cal and ot her fac tual s i m i l ar i t i es t o t hi s cas e. Ex t r e me As s o c i a t e s c o r r e c t l yq u o t e s d i c t a f r o m R eno v. A m e r ic a n C iv il L ib e r tie s U n io n , 521 U

. S. 844 ( 1997) , i ndi cat i ng t hatt he I nt erneti s “a uni que and w hol l ynew m edi um of w or l dw i de comm uni cat i on. ” I d. a t850 ( ci t i ng w i t houtcomm ent fi nd i n g o f f

a c t 8 1 f r o m th e Di s t r i c t Cou r t i n t h a t c a s e )

. I n t he s ame cas e, how ever , t he C our tnot ed that“[t ]rans m i t t i ng obs ceni t y. . . w hether vi a t he I nt ernet orot herm eans , i s al r eady i l l egal underfede r al l aw forbot h adul t s an d j uveni l es , ” and i m pl i ed thatt he “Chi l d D ece ncyA ct , ” a statut e r egul at i ng por nogr aphyovert he I nt ernetati s s ue i n R eno , m igh tbe unnece s s aryow i ng t o t he exi s t i ng fede r al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he d istri b u ti o n o f ob sce n ity . I d. a t 8 7 8 n .4 4 (c itin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 1465)

. I n ot her w or ds , t he C our tt hus farhas nots ugges t ed that obs ceni t yl aw does notappl yt o t he I nt ernetoreven thata new a n a l yt i c a l p a t h i s n e c e s s a r yi n I n t e r n e tc a s e s . I f t h e S u p r e me C ou rtw i shes t o treat al l Int ernetob sceni t ycases as su i g e n e ris f o r p u rp o se s o f

f e d e ra l o b sc e n ity law a n a ly sis , it h a s n o t y e t sa idW e re w e to c o n c e d e th a t th e S u p re m e C o u r t h a s o r is 14 p re p a re d to a n a ly z e o b sc e n e In ter n e t tran sm iss io n s d if f e re n tly beca us e, unl i ke the ac t s i nvol ved i n O rito and othercas es , s uch tra n sm iss io n s in v o lv e n o “ p h y sic a l” tra n sp o rta tio n o f o b sc e n ity o u t s i d e t h e h o me , t ha tc o n c e s s i o n wo u l d n o ts a v e Ex t r e me A s s oci at es ’ m ot i on. T he hol di ng i n O rito , forexampl e, i nvol ves t w o pr ongs : ( 1) C ongr es s m ayr egul at e obs ceni t yon t he bas i s of th e d a n g e r th a t itw ill n o t re m a in p riv a te o n c e it p h y sic a lly le a v e s th e h o m e in a n yw a y , O rito , 4 1 3 U

. S. at143; and ( 2) irre sp e c tiv e o f

a n ysu c h d a n g e r, C o n g re ss m a y p re v e n t in ter sta te comm er ce a nd t he cha nnel s t her eof f r om bei ng us ed t o sp read evi l o f a phy s i cal , m or al oreconomi c natur e. C ongr es s m ay t her efor e kee p al l obs cene m at er i al ent i r el youtof the s t r eam of c o m m e rc e . I

d. at143- 44. A tm os t , t he af orem ent i oned co n ce ssion reg ard ing the Intern et w o u ld co m p rom ise p ron g (1). A s w e di s cus s bel ow , t he s econd pr o n g s t ands uns cathed for p u rp o se s o f

th is a p p e a l an d , o n its o w n , w o u ld d icta te th e re su lt.

28 s o, “t aci t l y ” orot herw i s e. 14
E v e n c lea re r is th e f

a c t th a t O rito and P a ris A d u lt Theatr e a f

f irm th e p o w e r o f

C o n g re ss to “ re g u late in ter sta te comm er ce t o t he ext entof forbi ddi ng and puni s hi ng t he use of su ch co m m erc e as an ag en cyto p rom o te i m m o rali ty
. . . o r ha rm t o t he peopl e of other s t at es fr om t he s t at e of or i gi n. ” O rito , 413 U .S . a t 1 4 4 n .6 ; s e e a ls o id

. at14 4 (“C on gress m ayi m po se r el evantcondi t i ons . . . on t h o se w ho us e the cha nnel s of i nt erst ate com m er ce i n or dert hatt hos e cha nnel s w i l l not b e c o m e th e m e a n s o f

sp re a d in g e v il, w h e th e r o f a p h y sic a l,29 m o ra l o r e c o n o m ic n a tu re ” ); i d. at 143 ( “[t ] hat t h e t r ans por t er has an abs t r actpr opr i et arypow ert o s hi el d t he obs cene m at er i al fr om al l ot her s and t o guar d t he mat er i al w i t h t he s ame pr i vacy a s in th e h o m e is n o t co n tro lli n g ” ); P aris A du l tT hea tre , 413 U .S . at 5 8 ( “ w e h o ld th a t th e re a re leg iti m a te s tate in ter e sts in s t emm i ng t he t i de of c om m er ci al i zed obs ceni t y , even a s s um i ng it i s f e a sib le to e n f

o rc e e f f e c tiv e sa f

e g u a rd s a g a in st e x p o su re to ju v e n il e s a n d p a ss e rsb y ” ); i d. at 69 (“ com m er ce i n obs cene m at er i al i s unpr ot ect ed byanycons ti tuti onal doctr i ne of pr i vacy ”) ( emphasi s added)

. T he I nt erneti s a cha nnel of com m er ce c over ed byt he fe der al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of obs ceni t y . E xt r eme A s s oci at es w as i ndi ct ed for engagi ng i n comm er ci al t r ans act i ons t hat i t s ow n br i ef on a ppeal des cr i bes a s “I nt ernetcomm er ce. ” Thi s cas e ca nnotbe m eani ngful l ydi s t i ngui s h ed mer el ybeca us e i ti nvol ves t he In ter n e t.
I V.
W e ar e sat i s fi ed t hat t he S upr eme C our thas deci ded that the fede r al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of obs ceni t ydo notvi ol at e anycons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o p ri v acy . Fordi s t r i ctand appel l at e cour t s i n our j udi ci al s y s t em, s u ch a det erm i nat i on di ct at es t h e resul ti n anal ogous cas es unl es s and unt i l t he Supr eme C our texpr es s l y overrul es t he s ubs t ance of i t s deci s i on. L a w re nce v. Texa s r e p r e s e n t s n o s u c h d e f i n i t i v e s t e p b yt he C o u rt. It w a s th e re f

o re im p e rm iss ib le f

o r th e D istric t C o u rt to strik e d o w n th e sta tu tes a t issu e b a se d o n sp e c u latio n th a t O rito30 and otherpi vot al obs cen it ycas es “appe ar [] t o r es ton r eas ons r ej ect ed i n” Law r ence . A gos t i ni , 5 2 1 U

. S

. at 23 7

. E v en if th ere we r e a n a l yt i c a l me r i tt o s u c h s p e c u l a t i o n , a n i s s u e o n wh i c h we do notopi ne, t he cons t r ai nton l ow ercour t s r emai ns t he s ame. T h e p o ss ib ili tyth a t Law r ence has “s om eho w w eakened the p r e c e d e n t i a l v a l u e of” t he R ei del l i ne of c as es i s i r r el evantfor p u rp o s e s o f

ru lin g o n th e in s ta n t in d ic tm e n t. Singl et ary , 268 F. 3d at205.
W e co n clud e th at d ir ec tl y ap p li ca b le S u p rem e C o u rt pr ece dent , uphol di ng t he cons t i tut i onal i t y of t he fe der al s t atut es r egul at i ng t he di s t r i but i on of obs ceni t yunderFi r s tA m endment and s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s pr i vacyr i ght s , governs t hi s cas e. T h e D istri ct C ou rt w as bo un d by t hat authori t y , as are w e, to u p h o ld th o se sta tu tes a s a p p lied to E x tre m e A ss o c iate s o n b e h a lf of it s cu s t om er s . A s s uch, t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n s t r i ki ng d o wn t h e s t a tu t e s a n d d i s m i s s i n g t h e i n d i c t me n ta g a i n s tEx t r e me A s s o c ia te s . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r ever s e the O r derof th e D i s t r i ct C our tand r emand t he ca s e forfurtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t ent w i t h t hi s opi ni on.