Source: https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/alexander-et-al-v-virginia/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:08:53+00:00

Document:
Whether RICO's forfeiture provisions constituted a prior restraint on speech and were overbroad thereby violating the First Amendment.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIAStanley M. Dietz argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with Miller v. California, ante, at 23-25, Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, ante, at 58 n. 7, and Heller v. New York, ante, p. 483. See United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, ante, at 129-130 and n. 7. A trial by jury is not constitutionally required in this state civil proceeding pursuant to § 18.1-236.3 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. See Melancon v. McKeithen, 345 F. Supp. 1025, 1027, 1035-1045, 1048 (ED La.), aff’d sub nom. Mayes v. Ellis, 409 U. S. 943 (1972), and Hill v. McKeithen, *837 409 U. S. 943 (1972). Cf. Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436, 443-444 (1957).
I would reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with my dissenting opinion in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, ante, p. 73. See my dissent in Miller v. California, ante, p. 47.
[*] Ralph J. Schwarz, Jr., Mel S. Friedman, and Joel Hirschhorn filed a brief for the First Amendment Lawyers’ Association as amicus curiae urging reversal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.