## Facts

- A nonprofit trade association and related entities sought to distribute a sexually explicit film, *After Midnight*, in the Western District of Tennessee.
- Plaintiffs believed the film would not be considered obscene under contemporary community standards in that district.
- Plaintiffs alleged federal authorities regularly enforce federal anti-obscenity laws in the district and that potential prosecution chilled their First Amendment activity.
- Plaintiffs did not allege any seizure of the film, arrests, indictments, pending prosecutions, or specific threats of prosecution tied to *After Midnight*.
- Plaintiffs filed a federal declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial declaration that the film was not obscene and therefore constitutionally protected.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs alleged a sufficiently concrete and imminent injury (or credible threat of injury) to establish Article III standing for declaratory relief regarding the film’s obscenity.
2. Whether, even if standing existed, the request for a pre-enforcement declaration that the film was not obscene presented a ripe controversy rather than an abstract dispute.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held plaintiffs lacked standing because they alleged no concrete injury or sufficiently specific threat of enforcement connected to their planned distribution of *After Midnight*.
- The court held that, even assuming standing, the dispute was not ripe because there was no concrete application of obscenity law to this film (no prosecution, seizure, or official determination).
- The court noted a possible sovereign-immunity defect but did not decide the appeal on that ground.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury; a generalized fear of prosecution based on government policy or past enforcement is insufficient without a credible, specific threat tied to the plaintiff’s conduct.
- Federal courts may not issue advisory opinions; a request for an abstract pre-enforcement determination that a work is (or is not) obscene, without concrete enforcement facts, falls outside the “case or controversy” requirement.
- Ripeness bars declaratory relief where the dispute depends on contingent future events and lacks a concrete factual setting, particularly for obscenity determinations that turn on context and community standards.

## Conclusion

The court refused to adjudicate the obscenity status of *After Midnight* through a declaratory judgment because plaintiffs alleged only a generalized chill from potential enforcement, not a concrete or imminent prosecution threat, and the dispute was premature without an actual enforcement action or specific threatened application of the obscenity laws to the film.


Adult Video Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 71 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 1995)