Document: 484 U.S. 383 108 S.Ct. 636 98 L.Ed.2d 782 VIRGINIA, Appellantv.AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al. No. 86-1034. Argued Nov. 4, 1987. Decided Jan. 25, 1988. Syllabus A 1985 amendment to a Virginia statute makes it unlawful for any person "to knowingly display commercial purposes in manner whereby juveniles may examine and peruse" certain visual or written sexual sadomasochistic material that is harmful juveniles. What "harmful juveniles" defined elsewhere the statute. Plaintiffs, number of booksellers' organizations two non-"adults only," general-purpose bookstores (appellees here), filed suit Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging facially violative First Amendment significantly unnecessarily burdens expressive rights adults because economically devastating extremely restrictive measures booksellers must adopt comply; overbroad restricts access by mature works are "harmful" only younger children; unconstitutionally vague impossible determine what standard should be used deciding whether work appropriate different ages levels maturity. At trial, owners introduced as exhibits 16 general-subject books they believed covered amendment, testified law might apply much one-half their inventory. However, on cross-examination, admitted unfamiliarity with portion defining juveniles." Nevertheless, upon finding, inter alia, would cover between 5 25 percent typical bookseller's inventory, court held unconstitutional permanently enjoined its enforcement. The Appeals affirmed. Although critical evidentiary basis determination, neither accepted nor rejected Court's finding statute's scope. did declare face "significant" difficulty attempting comply. In so ruling, State's suggestion bookseller could avoid prosecution merely tagging offensive materials placing them behind "blinder" racks. also questioned treating all identically was constitutional, but not issue. Held: 1. Plaintiffs had standing bring suit. "injury fact" requirement met here, since aimed directly at plaintiffs, who, if interpretation correct, will have take significant costly compliance risk criminal prosecution. usual rule party assert violation own give way exception allowing assertion free expression others, plaintiffs alleged an infringement bookbuyers. pre-enforcement nature irrelevant, actual well-founded fear enforced against them, there no reason assume otherwise. Indeed, danger is, large measure, one self-censorship; harm can realized even without P. 292—393. 2. light case's unique factual procedural setting, this attempt decide constitutional issues presented, instead certifies questions statutory Supreme Court, answers which substantially aid review case entirely. Pp. 393-398. (a) Under unusual circumstances case, where amendment's constitutionality turns read, none conflicting interpretations reliable, State Attorney General apparently willing concede narrowly interpreted, essential benefit authoritative answer certified question below fall within scope, general reach juveniles' differing General's covers very few "borderline" obscene plaintiffs' cannot authoritative, does bind state courts local enforcement authorities. Moreover, holding applies up quarter bookstore's inventory supported reliable evidence, bookstore who were unfamiliar definition minors." Nor Appeals' construction confront "substantial" problem relied upon, since, although criticized holding, gave alternative determination. 393-396. (b) whether, asserted oral argument, satisfied bookseller, matter policy, prevents juvenile observed reviewing from continuing do so, restricted segregated nonobjectionable works, and, not, complied store's policy announced otherwise manifested public, certified, affirmative first mean, while positive response second burden therefore adult bookbuying less than feared plaintiffs. There some advantage cost, either terms chilling effect unnecessary delay, certifying question, proffers narrowing inevitable impossible, case; i.e., another already being remain throughout certification process, has ever opportunity interpret pertinent language. 396-397. 802 F.2d 691 (CA 4 1986), certified. BRENNAN, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. STEVENS, concurring part dissenting part, post, p. 398. Richard Bain Smith, Richmond, Va., appellant. Paul M. Bator, Chicago, Ill., appellees. Justice BRENNAN Court. 1 declared following statute: "It shall . purpose "depicts sexually explicit nudity, conduct abuse Va.Code 18.2-391(a) (Supp.1987). setting leads us conclude our well Accordingly, we certify Court.1 2 * 1968, prohibition sale those 17 deemed Ginsberg v. New York, 390 629, 643, 88 1274, 1282, 20 195 (1968). next year, enacted similar Code's current modification Miller obscenity, adapted California, 413 15, 24, 93 2607, 2614, 37 419 (1973). reads relevant part: 3 " 'Harmful Juveniles' means quality description presentation, whatever form, conduct, excitement, abuse, when predominately appeals prurient, shameful morbid interest juveniles, patently prevailing standards community whole respect suitable (c) taken whole, lacking serious literary, artistic, political scientific value 18.2-390(6) (1982). 1985, amended make crime aforementioned materials, these actually sold juvenile.2 made facial challenge United States Eastern Virginia.3 They fundamentally prior adults, whom least obscene. argued that, provision affect way, Ginsberg, supra, U.S., 634-635, 1277-1278, governing such minors, Specifically, argued, requires to: (1) create "adults only" section store; (2) place counter (which require bookbuyer request specially work); (3) decline carry question; (4) bar store.4 maintained bookbuyers generally selections browsing through displayed books, reluctant enter store store, effectively entire population's purview. effect, reduces population reading viewing children, something repeatedly prohibited Amendment. Bolger Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 60, 73-74, 103 2875, 2883-2884, 77 469 (1983); Butler Michigan, 352 380, 383-384, 524, 525-526, 412 (1957). Consequently, asserted, undergo scrutiny. Applying scrutiny, reasoned restricting insubstantial further available. support proposition, criminalizes mere evidence peruse them. 6 children. Finally, purported vague, allegedly maturity.5 7 brought 1983 Arlington County Chief Police. Pursuant 28 2403(b), intervened. defendants necessary corollary sales restriction, other useless. Defendants challenged reach, arguing extends "borderline obscenity." Further, achieved, maintained, distinctive tags "blinder racks." Therefore, "spillover" permissible "time, place, manner" test. Even strict due compelling protecting lack achieve interest. 8 moved preliminary injunction, dismiss abstain. injunction hearing, became trial merits, called three witnesses: (the plaintiff bookstores) counsel American Booksellers Association. stores most respects State. total examples covered, half diverse, including classic literature, health texts, poetry, photography, pot-boiler novels. witnesses steps conform statute, repeating four options discussed above. On elicited testimony submitted testifying mistaken impression coverage. 9 denied defendant's motion declined agreed alternatives available comply law, rejecting defendants' placed nonobscene works. It concluded overbroad, 10 Fourth Circuit (1986). While expressly scope Id., 696. same time, however, stated "[i]t gainsaid" book retailers Appeals, like adopted theory acceptable modes alternatives, reasoning blinder racks practical matter, deter examining perusing 11 appealed conflict among Courts Appeals. See Upper Midwest Assn. Minneapolis, 780 1389 (CA8 1985) (holding ordinance constitutional), M.S. News Co. Casado, 721 1281 (CA10 1983) (same). We noted probable jurisdiction. 479 1082, 107 1281, 94 140 (1987). II 12 address before lacked challenge, suffer sufficient harm, economic, speech related. premature, having been effective. 13 To cause action federal establish irreducible minimum injury fact; 'threatened resulting putatively illegal action. .' Warth Seldin, 422 490, 499, 95 2197, 2205, 45 343 (1975), quoting Linda R.S. D., 410 614, 617, 1146, 1148, 35 536 (1973); see Association Data Processing Service Organizations Camp, 397 150, 151-154, 90 827, 829-830, 184 (1970). That Craig Boren, 429 190, 194, 97 451, 455, 50 (1976); Doe Bolton, 179, 188, 739, 745, 201 14 fact demonstrated, rights. context, '[l]itigants permitted violated, judicial prediction assumption existence others refrain constitutionally protected expression.' Secretary Maryland J.H. Munson Co., 467 947, 956-957, 104 2839, 2846-2847, 81 786 (1984), quotingBroadrick Oklahoma, 601, 612, 2908, 2916, 830 This bookbuyers.6 15 troubled suggested newly enforced, III presented key provisions Several factors combine course. argument attorney7 conceded read contend, should, normative enjoined. he seemingly prevail.8 argues coverage narrower allege found. contends plaintiffs.9 18 narrow argues, single shelf wares. App. 222. If true, methods exist burdensome lower courts. For example, currently done bookstores, containing located sight bookseller. examines peruses employee prevent his so. 207. say still raise substantial questions. dramatically altered. 19 pointing courts' paint strikingly picture. broad enactment, potentially applying huge say, covering obscenity," rather device expunging adults. similarly regarded coverage; Virginia's, (as held) "substantial problem" stated) extend beyond nearly broader correspondingly greater rarely reviews Brockett Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 491, 499-500, 105 2794, 2799-2800, 86 394 (1985). presents rare situation rely findings below. record supporting reaches bookstore, tell court's based independent determination Judge, suggest, flawed testimony. But former, discern it. Neither construction. Given history law. authorities, unable accept her authoritative. 21 circumstances, appears defend substance drastically altered law's Certification, contrast more cumbersome (in context) problematic abstention doctrine, method expeditiously obtain Bellotti Baird, 428 132, 96 2857, 49 844 (1976) (remanding instructions pertaining susceptible multiple interpretations, modify challenge). resort Rule 5:42 ask how decisions into account 22 question. bench, attorney subject if, segregated.10 means, (Even required announce manifest perhaps signs reasonable measures, construction.) 23 long tenet determining "readily susceptible" upheld. Erznoznik City Jacksonville, 205, 2268, 125 (1975); Broadrick application principle limitation; rewrite requirements. 24 readily interpretation. unusual. Another proffered impossible. Thus, question.11 IV respectfully questions: 26 Does phrase Code §§ 18.2-390 18.2-391 (1982 Supp.1987), properly construed, encompass below, maturity? 27 meaning given (Supp.1987) making materials? permitting prohibits observed, takes regarding public? ordered. 29 part. 30 important decided advocate's concession during Assistant certainly correct restriction Penguin Book Love Poetry unconstitutional, clear subjected prohibition. colloquy partially quoted ante, 393—394, n. 8, entirely unambiguous equivalent formal commitment appeal advises I which, any, plaintiff's Because arguable varies widely, character references great help understanding evaluating validity. am agreement written, dissent refusal proposed. 5:42(a) Rules states: "Power Answer.—The [Virginia] discretion States, circuit, district court, highest appellate Columbia. Such furnished, requested determinative proceeding pending controlling precedent point Virginia." opinion, along statement appended Clerk out names, addresses, telephone numbers parties names each involved, constitute order. Va.Sup.Ct. 5:42(d). transmit transcript. Appellant bear fees costs Va.Sup.Ct.Rule 5:42(g). taxable items pursuant 50. Virginia's procedure effective April 1, 1987, hence unavailable italicized, follows: "Definitions.—As article: "(1) 'Juvenile' eighteen years age. [Subsections (2)-(5) define "Nudity," "Sexual conduct," excitement," "Sadomasochistic abuse," respectively.] "(6) representation, "(7) 'Knowingly' knowledge of, know, belief ground warrants inspection inquiry both content described herein reasonably examination defendant, age juvenile, provided honest mistake excuse liability hereunder defendant bona fide ascertain true juvenile." reads: "Unlawful acts.—(a) sell loan peruse: Any picture, drawing, sculpture, picture film, representation image human body depicts "(2) book, pamphlet, magazine, printed however reproduced sound recording contains enumerated subdivision subsection, detailed verbal descriptions narrative accounts "(e) Violation hereof Class misdemeanor." included memberships consisting national booksellers, child. dismissed parent child failure potential economic flowing therefrom, "anything abstract availability interests citizens patronize bookstores." Strobel, 617 F.Supp. 699, 704 remaining appellees here. types Virginia. Some traditional owners. Others include, grocery owners, drugstore airport convenience magazine ability diverse utilize varies. problems arise context original regulates materials. According individualized suitability specific item 691, 695, (CA4 1986). complaint right claim passed pressed term "State's attorney" refers Mr. case. After noting range represented said: "If involves material, then lose submit Commonwealth desire restrict indirectly, type material. "I wager exhibit, Plaintiff's Exhibit Number Poetry. falls You don't look Just book. Or you want thing goes ." Tr. Oral Arg. 19, (emphasis added). note brief conceded, appeared concede, exhibits, Hollywood Wives, covered. Opening Brief Nos. 85-1961(L), 85-1999, pp. 27-28. apparent disclaimed. 5. occurred argument: "QUESTION: suppose segregate books. Would able simply saying, whenever looks me ought know stop him leave store. my policy. "Would enough statute? "MR. SMITH: Yes sir. talking about language 'display peruse.' 'May.' think— 'May' possible cited Foreign Case, said used, mean certainty tendency strictly construed Commonwealth, suggested, qualify." 51-52 relating (Va.Code 18.2-391(a)(1) (Supp.1987)) (§ 18.2-391(a)(2) (Supp.1987)). believe resolving inquiries.

Category: 8