Document: 401 U.S. 216 91 S.Ct. 777 27 L.Ed.2d 792 Garrett H. BYRNE et al., Appellants,v.Serafim KARALEXIS al. No. 83. Reargued Nov. 17, 1970. Decided Feb. 23, 1971. Robert Quinn, Boston, Mass., for appellants. Nathan Lewin, Washington, D.C., and Alan M. Dershowitz, Cambridge, appellees. Peter L. Strauss, the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. PER CURIAM. 1 This is an appeal from order a three-judge court granting preliminary injunction against any civil or criminal proceedings in state courts Appellant Byrne district attorney Suffolk County, Massachusetts. The appellees own operate motion picture theater Boston. As result exhibiting film entitled 'I am Curious (Yellow)' at their theater, where charged District Attorney with violating Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272, § 28A, which prohibits possession obscene films purpose exhibition.1 2 After filing original indictments them brought present action federal court.2 They sought both pending future prosecutions under obscenity law, declaration that law was unconstitutional on its face applied.3 Court held had probability success having statute declared unconstitutional, abstention would be improper, might suffer irreparable injury if they were unable to show film. court, one judge dissenting, therefore granted injunction, forbidding initiation execution sentence imposed then pending. 306 F.Supp. 1363 (1969). appealed. We stay order, 396 976, 90 469, 24 447, 486 (1969), subsequently noted probable jurisdiction, 397 985, 1123, 25 394 (1970). 3 In discussing subject injury, said: 4 'We do not agree defendant's contention there no indication injury. Even money damages could thought some cases adequate compensation delay, this defendant will presumably immune. plaintiffs box office receipts, substantial can expected smaller. A moving may well diminishing asset. It has been said, also, assessing chilling effect upon freedom expression others considered. 5 See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 1965, 380 479, 486—489, 85 1116, 14 22.' F.Supp., 1367. 6 There was, however, finding threat appellees' federally protected rights 'one cannot eliminated by(their) defense single prosecution.' Younger Harris, 37, 46, 746, 751. Because Court, considering propriety injunctive declaratory relief case, without guidance provided today our decisions supra, Samuels Mackell, 66, 764, 688. vacate judgment below remand reconsideration light those decisions. 7 so ordered. 8 Judgment vacated case remanded. 9 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took part consideration decision appeal. 10 BRENNAN, whom WHITE MARSHALL join, dissenting. 11 appealed issued December 6, 1969, after convictions November 12, violation law. absence showing bad faith harassment, obliged pursue constitutional defenses appellate Federal erred enjoining appellants interfering showings Freedman Maryland, 51, 60, 734, 739—740, 13 649 (1965), limited preservation status quo shortest, fixed period compatible soundjudicial resolution, restraint advance prompt, final, judicial determination question film's alleged obscenity. also Lee Art Theater Virginia, 392 636, 88 2103, 20 1313 (1968). But interference July through November; appellant honored stipulation made 15 seize interfere exhibition outcome trial. withdrew threatened move further only obtained. Clearly, he required continue his hand appeals convictions; satisfied 'prompt trial court,' Teitel Film Corp. Cusack, 390 139, 142, 754, 756, 19 966 (1968) (emphasis supplied); Interstate Circuit, Inc. City Dallas, 676, 690 n. 22, 1298, 1306—1307, 225 Rather than I reverse reasons stated my opinion Perez Ledesma, 82, p. 93, 674, 681, 701. Mass.Gen.Laws, c. provides: 'Importing, printing, distributing possessing things. 'Whoever imports, prints, publishes, sells distributes pamphlet, ballad, printed paper, phonographic record, other thing obscene, indecent impure, impure print, picture, figure, image description, buys, procures, receives such thing, sale, exhibition, loan circulation, shall punished * *.' While dismissed defects new returned. Under these circumstances we treat prosecution time suit initiated. prayer relief, amended, read follows: 'Wherefore, pray: '(1) That permanent prohibiting defendant, agents servants, seizures prints Am prior adversary proceeding appropriate picture. '(2) return herein print seized Thursday, May 29, 1969; suppression evidence now Superior aforesaid; reason before seizure exhibited Grand Jury basis '(3) following hearing, continuation said six actions (Docket numbers 42587, 42592) until Sections 32 28A have appropriately altered amended. '(4) Your pray issue restraining (Yellow),' jurisdiction grounds it 'allegedly obscene.' Plaintiffs contend 'without hope success.' '(5) declare say Section 272 Laws (sic) face, application herein, all accordance Title 28 U.S.C. 2201. '(6) within definition set forth States Supreme Redrup New York, 386 767, 87 1414, 18 515 (1967) *. '(7) restrain obscene' terms way 'know work '(8) violative restrained affirm standards are that—(1) being shown age 18; (2) Or invasion privacy; (3) advertised 'pandering' manner. '(9) success' '(10) For deem essential proper Equity Law.'

Category: 8