Document: 390 U.S. 139 88 S.Ct. 754 19 L.Ed.2d 966 TEITEL FILM CORPORATION et al.v.John F. CUSACK al. No. 787. Decided Jan. 29, 1968. Elmer Gertz and Leon N. Miller, for appellants. Raymond Simon Marvin E. Aspen, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 This appeal seeks review of judgments the Supreme Court Illinois which affirmed orders Circuit Cook County permanently enjoining appellants from showing certain motion pictures in public places City Chicago, 38 Ill.2d 53, 230 N.E.2d 241. The questions presented are whether Chicago Motion Picture Censorship Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face as applied, films involved obscene.1 2 prohibits exhibition any place 'any picture * without first having secured a permit therefor superintendent police.' Superintendent required 'within three days receipt' to 'inspect such or cause them be inspected by Film Review Section within after inspection' either grant deny permit.2 If denied exhibitor may seven seek Appeal Board. Appeals Board must film 15 request review, thereafter afford exhibitor, his agent distributor hearing. serve applicant with written notice ruling five close denies permit, 'the Board, ten hearing, shall file an action injunction against film.' A Rule, General Order 3—3, promulgated May 26, 1965, provides that 'complaint given priority over all other causes. set hearing (5) defendant has answered *.'3 However, neither rule nor statutory provision assures prompt judicial decision question alleged obscenity film. 3 held 'that administration violates no constitutional rights defendants.' Ill.2d, at 63, N.E.2d, 247. We disagree. In Freedman v. State Maryland, 380 51, 58—59, 85 734, 739, 13 649, we '* noncriminal process requires prior submission censor avoids infirmity only if it takes under procedural safeguards designed obviate dangers censorship system. To this end, assured, statute authoritative construction, will, specified brief period, issue license go court restrain (T)he procedure also assure final decision, minimize deterrent effect interim possibly erroneous denial license.' (Emphasis supplied.) procedures violate these standards two respects. (1) 50 57 provided ordinance complete administrative before initiation proceeding does not satisfy standard (2) absence trial *.' 4 Accordingly, reverse remand case further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 5 Reversed remanded. 6 Mr. Justice BLACK DOUGLAS, agreeing 738—739, reversal case, base their Redrup New York, 386 767, 87 1414, 18 515. 7 HARLAN concurs result. 8 STEWART bases concurrence judgment upon light our do reach, intimate view upon, obscene. was amended during pendency require inspection films. members Superintendent's Section, request, 'review each submitted recommend writing Police permit.' Comments judge suggest doubt regarded compliance mandatory: 'Mr. Aspen (counsel City): As far concerned, my understand (sic) Judge Boyle Rule nothing said there will filing answer— 'The Court: I am going have changed because just cannot everything aside give kind litigation. First amendment matters anymore important than right citizen's heard. 'As before, more take care broken heads fractured legs bleeding hearts.'

Category: 2