Opinion ID: 768307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Subsequent Punishment

Text: 109 Prosecution of Tunick or his models under the New York statutes after the photography is complete would be another matter. Tunick's counsel made clear at oral argument that the aim of this proceeding was solely to enjoin a prior restraint..... The purpose sought was not to prevent Mr. Tunick from being prosecuted subsequently and hav[ing] the case wend its way through the court[s]. 7 Tr. Oral Arg. at 28. I see no impediment to such after-the-fact action under 245.01 or 245.02. 110 Should the City seek to prosecute Tunick (or his models) they would have available to them in the New York state courts the argument advanced here, that his (or their) activity is - plainly in Tunick's view - protected as a perform[ance] in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment under the exceptions contained in 245.01 and 245.02. State courts thus would decide the issue of the meaning of these state statutes. If the New York courts were to decide that Tunick's (or his models') behavior was not exempt under the statutes, he (or they) would then be able to argue the statutes' unconstitutionality. If he (or they) were prosecuted after the fact, his (or their) rights under the Federal Constitution and state constitutional 8 and statutory law would thus be protected. The potential for the 'friction-generating error' between the federal and state court systems that Judge Calabresi seeks to avoid, ante at 77 (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 79 (1997)), would not arise.