Legal Document

445 U.S. 308 100 Supreme Court Reporter 1156 63 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 413 Carol VANCE et al., Appellants,v.UNIVERSAL AMUSEMENT CO., INC., al. Number 78-1588. March 18, 1980. Rehearing Denied May 12, See 446 947, 2177. Lonny Federal KF105 F3 Zwiener, Austin, Tex., for appellants. Frierson M. Graves, Jr., Memphis, Tenn., appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The question presented in this unusual obscenity case is whether the of Appeals Fifth Circuit, 587 Reporter, 2nd 159, correctly held a Texas public nuisance statute unconstitpeals read as authorizing prior restraint indefinite duration on exhibition motion pictures without final judicial determination and any guarantee prompt review preliminary finding probable obscenity. Cf. Freedman versus Maryland, 380 51, 85 734, 13 649 (1965); Southeastern Promotions, Limited Conrad, 420 546, 95 1239, 43 448 (1975). In Court, appellants argue that such no more serious than imposed by Texas' criminal statutes it therefore constitutional. We find appellants' argument unpersuasive affirm judgment Appeals. 2 1973, appellee King Arts Theatre, Incorporated (hereafter appellee), operated an indoor, adults-only picture theater. October year, appellee's landlord gave notice theater's lease would be terminated. stated County Attorney had informed he intended to obtain injunction abate theater order prevent future showing allegedly obscene pictures. Appellee responded filing suit District Northern seeking declaratory relief forestall action under statutes. was transferred three-judge sitting Southern Texas, 404 F.Supp. 33 (1975) consolidation with number other pending cases. 3 Two different were issue at point. first, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., Article 4666 (Vernon 1952),1 authorizes suits name State against alleged nuisances. If successful, "judgment shall rendered abating said enjoining defendants from maintaining same, ordering house closed one year," unless certain conditions are met. second statute, 4667(a), Supp.1978), provides habitual uses premises constitute enjoined either or citizen. Among prohibited "the commercial manufacturing, distribution, material."2 4 both these authorize state judges, basis films have been exhibited past, prohibit not yet found obscene. Recognizing litigation conduct undesirable past present conduct, Near Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 697, 51 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931), require special analysis when may protected First Amendment.3 routine abatement procedure, which characterized heavy hand statute," considered constitutionally deficient Amendment context. 5 Specifically, noted general prohibition operate unnamed pictures, even orders temporarily restraining specific could entered parte.4 Moreover, temporary extended based success merits obscenity.5 concluded statutes, coupled Rules Civil Procedure governing injunctions, invalid exercise rights. 6 Because granted only injunctive relief, appealed Circuit. Gerstein Coe, 417 279, 94 2246, 41 68 (1974). A divided panel court reversed. 559 1286 (1977). majority acknowledged if authorized closing all "would pose first amendment questions," F.2d, 1290, but misconstrued apply cases.6 7 disagreed fundamentally Court's view 4667(a). It procedure "basically sound" its application establishment appellee's: 8 "The manufacture, distribution material only. follows, rather precedes, has shown distributed manufactured because prohibitions can further dealings unprotected material, does restraint." 1292 (emphasis original). 9 Further, problem (1965), adjudication judge, administrative censor. reversed.7 10 rehearing en banc, reversed panel's holding 4667(a) 159 (1978).8 8-to-6 objectionable allow issuance depict particular acts enumerated state's id., 168, "lacks procedural safeguards required . ." Id., 169.9 dissenters wrote pragmatic assessment statute's operation indicated once contemplated effect, impose greater forbidding materials deemed Miller California, 15, 93 2607, 37 419 (1973).10 11 we jurisdiction. 442 928, 99 2857, 61 295 (1979). limit our two arguments advanced brief:11 "obscenity injunction" 4667(a)(3) constitutes and, second, erroneously possible permissible. 12 * quite correct concluding (a) regulation communicative activity must adhere narrowly drawn procedures necessary ordinary nuisance,12 (b) burden supporting heavier justifying imposition sanction communication.13 As construed Procedure, restraints finally adjudicated obscene.14 Presumably, exhibitor obey subject contempt proceedings film ultimately nonobscene.15 Such onerous threat sanctions after exhibited, since nonobscenity defense prosecution. 14 Nor fact trial judge censor sufficiently distinguish Maryland. "Any system expression comes bearing presumption constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Sullivan, 372 58, 70, 83 631, 639, 584 (1963) added). That might thought likely determine accurately work change unconstitutional character entered. 15 Accordingly, agree Appeals' conclusion absence entry named regard context they displayed, precludes enforcement exhibitors. II 16 Contrary argument, did hold there never valid activity. simply procedurally permissible Maryland Promotions 17 merit contentions behalf appellants, affirmed. 18 so ordered. 19 Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, whom Justice POWELL joins, dissenting. 20 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions dismiss appeal failure real substantial controversy "of immediacy indispensable condition adjudication." Poe Ullman, 367 497, 508, 81 1752, 1758, 989 (1961) (plurality opinion). Alternatively, abstain decision until courts interpret challenged statute. reach "dispute" stage. 21 This power "most securely founded exercised impact lively conflict between antagonistic demands, actively pressed, make resolution controverted practical necessity." 503, S.Ct., 1755. plainly fails satisfy rigorous standard. Here, conceded oral remedy used prosecutor.1 light concession, recalls Poe, where Frankfurter concluded: 22 [the State] chosen press deprives controversies adjudication. cannot umpire debates concerning harmless, empty shadows." U.S., 1758. 23 By passing constitutionality ignores wise counsel.2 24 need obviated permitting opportunity law. today assumes (1) "a duration" issued "on merits," ante, 316, n. 14; (2) violating adjudged nonobscene, 15. assumptions correct, obviously flawed. (1965). But ample reason believe wrong today's conjectures; indeed, film. Compare 312 dissenting opinion WHITE, post, 325. permitted, Locke State, 516 South Western 949 (1974), casts doubt assumption obtained success. There, reviewing validity made de novo on-the-merits obscenity.3 Are really applies less stringent, probable-success standard? At very least, demonstrates obtainable slender showing, enjoy short life. stark proof abstaining know law "forecasts" be. Railroad commission Pullman Co., 496, 499, 643, 644, 971 (1941).4 "So fragile record unsatisfactory entertain relief." Public Affairs Press Rickover, 369 111, 114, 82 580, 582, 604 (1962). 25 sum, am unwilling join "umpiring" debate speak. appeal. 26 REHNQUIST 27 invalidated what understand distinct reasons. Neither valid, extent falls into same error, respectfully dissent. 28 reason. disagree. my view, standing alone, intrudes values barring terms 29 well, glosses over take crucial feature Before violated injunction, separate proceedings. First, plaintiff permanent use Second, civil injunction. When carefully distinguished, becomes apparent neither individually nor jointly do impermissible freedoms. 30 initial proceeding substantively sound precedents. Although lack actual gives somewhat abstract hypothetical tone analysis, seems undisputed will phrased (1973), definition obscenity.1 Hence forbid functional equivalent—and concededly valid—criminal declares punishable.2 true while legislature. Yet distinction irrelevant purposes. 31 Of course, who continues show arguably him run risk being contempt. implies danger renders Walker City Birmingham, 388 307, 317-321, 87 1824, 1830-1832, 1210 (1967), nonobscene. Ante, wrong. noted, dispute, adequate Therefore, contrary inference, picture's clearly defeat brought obscene, violation 32 There remains employed requirements. do. An shows violative tried rights defendant. particular, bear proving beyond reasonable obscene.3 seem requirements exist respect defendant also refused cease proved proceeding, unlike original result jailing fining ceased publicly determined fully Under law, received notice, form cause, hearing charge him. E.g., Ex parte Mouille, 572 60, 62 (Tex.Civ.App.1978). bringing charges party suppress exhibition; presumably, bears noncompliance films. Since before court, exhibit And then purge his ceasing 34 therefore, too easily equate unnamed, typical "prior does, sense, "restrain" speech declaring punishable exhibitions weak sense term restraints." Prior from, dangerous free than, because, through caprice, mistake, purpose, protected, speaker punished disobeying though protected. Those dangers entirely absent here. bar punished, proceedings, material. short, traditional restraint. On contrary, me functionally indistinguishable appropriately worded also. 35 given invalidating apparently adopted "failure provide mandated by" cases injunctions burdens instituting censor; limited time preserve status quo; (3) assurance films' 36 fail see, however, how relevant wholly appropriate specific, films, directed logically impossible issues. said, restrains similarly referred declared those compliance comply set out cases, perceive why inadequacy invalidates statutory provision, contemplating 38 light, striking down gratuitous, "Art. 4666. Nuisance; prosecution "Whenever General, district county attorney reliable information exists, them file whoever maintains enjoin same. favor year date judgment, suit, owner, tenant lessee property bond payable seat exist, penal sum thousand five dollars, sufficient sureties approved trying case, conditioned done permitted house. bond, whole recovered penalty violated, county." early stages parties appear assumed applied pictures; least understood Appeals, applicable types specified 4664 none relates 6, infra. 4667. Injunctions nuisances "(a) use, actual, threatened contemplated, premises, place building part thereof, following citizen thereof: "(1) For gambling, gambling promotion, communicating law; "(2) promotion aggravated prostitution, compelling prostitution; "(3) material; "(4) live dances depicts simulated sexual intercourse deviate intercourse; "(5) voluntary engaging fight man bull money thing value, championship, upon anything value bet wagered, see admission fee charged directly indirectly, law." "In instant Minnesota, supra, attempt successful. mistake prohibiting conduct. amendment, dividing line 'dim uncertain.' Books [58], 66, 631 [at (1963)]. separation forms calls 'sensitive tools,' Speiser Randall, 357 513, 78 1332, 1460 (1958), statute." F.Supp., 44. dissent, WHITE incorrectly "undisputed obscenity." Post, 321. means necessarily so. probability issue. Even resolved. obtaining presumably utilized actions pursuant article 4667, leave much desired 680-693a Texas. Pursuant rules, lasting up ten days, parte. soon possible, within obtainable. but, obtained, provision treating differently case. swift raises doubts usability process situation." 46. interpreted "such nuisance" language sentence 4666, 1, referring "common nuisance[s]" Supp.1978): houses, houses places intoxicating liquors kept. Judge Thornberry, part, relied reasoning Court: "As wrote: 'Pursuant [Rules Procedure], [obscenity] situation.' " 1303. accepted majority's construction i.e., inapplicable Freedman, three reasons Maryland's censorship unconstitutional: "It readily scheme criteria. disapproves film, assume persuading expression. Board acted review, however protracted. appellant convicted unsuccessfully license, ever ruled Third, abundantly clear determination." 59-60, 739. brief confined attack counsel invited us issues relating should abstained. former contention members banc accepted, latter raised decline invitation. Emphasizing difference touching freedom activity, area well established challenge ground delegates overly broad licensing discretion office, proscribed properly license. 'One license asking call prosecuted procure it.' Thornhill Alabama, 310 88, 97 [60 736, 742, 84 1093]; Staub Baxley, 355 313, 319 [78 277, 280-281, 302]; Saia New York, 334 558 [68 1148, 92 1574]; Thomas Collins, 323 [65 315, 89 430]; Hague CIO, 307 496 [59 954, 1423]; Lovell Griffin, 303 444, 452-453 [58 666, 669, 949]. Standing recognized '. tolerating, freedoms, existence susceptible sweeping improper application.' NAACP Button, 371 415, 433 [83 328, 338, 405]; Amsterdam, Note, Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67, 75-76, 80-81, 96-104 (1960)." 56, 737-738. restraint, 'comes validity.' 70 639]; York Times company States, 403 [713, 714, 91 2140, 2141, 822 (1971)]; Organization Better Austin Keefe, 402 [91 1575, 1577, 1] (1971); Carroll Princess Anne, 393 175, 181 [89 347, 351, 325] (1968); [697, 716, (1931)]. heavier—and degree protection broader—than limits penalties. Behind theory deeply etched law: society prefers punish few abuse break throttle others beforehand. always difficult advance individual say, legitimate illegitimate often finely risks freewheeling formidable. 513 1460] (1958)." 558-559, 1246, believed short-lived merits. accept their purposes decision. Bernhardt Polygraphic 350 198, 204-205, 76 273, 276-277, 199 (1956). (1967); Mine Workers, 330 258, 293, 67 677, 695, 884 (1947). "QUESTION: Well, it—why, then, you [this statute], equivalent law? "MR. ZWEINER: sure do, frank; but— What add changes proof, person jury trial. don't think adds anything. matter cumbersome prosecutor rounds again. Tr. Oral Arg. 36-37. difference, controlling determining dispute one. defended perfunctory fashion, duty else. filed nine-page pages devoted analysis; derided "cumbersom[e] ineffectua[l]." Brief Appellants 6. Locke, follows: accordance requirement independent nature viewed introduced exhibits below, definition. practically plot story content. Their prurient interest They according test California [93 419]" S.W.2d, 954. Equally dubious open circumstances rule analogous invoked raising Circuit "obscene" defined reference Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 43.21 (Supp.1979). (1978); 33, 39 949, 952 (Tex.Civ.App. 1974). Section 43.21, turn, tracks nearly verbatim guidelines. panel, aspect repudiated held: Were overbroad restricting nonobscene (and protected) matter, exceed authority." 1286, (1977) disputing Indeed, already gone considerable trouble expressed some 171, n.23, citing Sample, 405 343 (Tex.1966). Sample Commission, proceeding; stands most proposition cause conclusively establish proof. receiving element To doubt, follows due

Classification Label: 2