Facts
- New York City officials brought an equity action under New York Code of Criminal Procedure § 22-a against several booksellers that sold paper-covered erotic booklets, including a series titled Nights of Horror.
- The complaint alleged the booksellers displayed for sale 14 obscene booklets attached to the pleading and sought an injunction against further distribution and an order requiring surrender of copies for destruction, with sheriff seizure if they did not comply.
- An order to show cause issued the same day; the booksellers consented to a temporary injunction while the case proceeded.
- After a trial in equity, the court found the booklets obscene, enjoined further distribution of those materials, and ordered destruction of copies; it declined to enjoin later, unproven “issues” not in evidence as an unreasonable prior restraint.
- The booksellers did not contest the obscenity finding on appeal and instead argued the statute and remedy were unconstitutional.
- New York’s highest court upheld the statute, and the booksellers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether a state may use a civil equity proceeding, rather than only criminal prosecution, to restrain distribution of publications adjudicated obscene and to order their destruction.
- Whether an injunction against distribution and an order of destruction, entered after a judicial obscenity determination, constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Whether due process requires a jury trial for the state’s use of this injunctive procedure targeting obscene publications.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding § 22-a and the injunction/destruction order.
- The Court held the Due Process Clause does not restrict a state to criminal prosecutions when addressing obscenity.
- The Court concluded the injunction did not amount to an impermissible prior restraint because it followed an adversary judicial determination of obscenity and was limited to the adjudicated publications, not future, unreviewed materials.
- The Court rejected the jury-trial objection, reasoning that due process does not require jury trials in misdemeanor-type obscenity matters and that the procedure supplied adequate safeguards.
- The Court upheld destruction of the condemned copies as a permissible remedial measure directed at “instruments” of adjudicated wrongdoing.
Legal Principles
- Obscene material may be prohibited by the state; the constitutional question is the permissibility of the procedures and remedies used once obscenity is judicially determined.
- The Fourteenth Amendment permits states to employ civil injunctive remedies, in addition to criminal sanctions, to suppress dissemination of adjudicated obscene publications.
- An injunction entered after a prompt, adversarial judicial determination of obscenity, narrowly confined to specific publications before the court, is not treated as a censorial prior restraint.
- Due process does not mandate a jury trial for state proceedings comparable to misdemeanor obscenity enforcement when adequate procedural protections are provided.
- Seizure and destruction of copies of publications judicially determined to be obscene may be ordered as a remedial consequence of the adjudication.
Conclusion
The Court held that New York could use a streamlined civil equity procedure to enjoin distribution and order destruction of specific publications after they were found obscene, and that this targeted, post-adjudication remedy did not violate the First Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment or deny due process for lack of a jury.