## Facts

- U.S. customs officials seized an imported copy of James Joyce’s *Ulysses* under § 305(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, which barred importation of “any obscene book.”
- The United States filed a libel action in federal court seeking forfeiture and exclusion of the book as obscene.
- Random House, Inc., the intended American publisher, intervened as claimant and denied the book was obscene.
- The book contained passages with explicit and coarse sexual content that the government argued rendered it obscene.
- The district court read the book as a whole, found it did not tend to excite lust, and dismissed the libel, permitting importation.
- The United States appealed; the Second Circuit affirmed in a 2–1 decision.

## Issues

1. Whether *Ulysses* is “obscene” within the meaning of § 305(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 so as to permit seizure and forfeiture.
2. Whether obscenity under § 305(a) should be determined by isolated offensive passages and their effect on susceptible readers, or by the work’s dominant effect as a whole on the average reader.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the forfeiture libel and held *Ulysses*, taken as a whole, was not obscene under § 305(a).
- The court rejected judging obscenity by isolated passages and by their effect on the most susceptible readers.
- The court concluded the book’s dominant effect on the average reader was not to promote lust, and the explicit material functioned within the book’s artistic method and subject matter.
- Judge Manton dissented, favoring a stricter approach that treated explicit passages as determinative.

## Legal Principles

- Obscenity for purposes of federal customs exclusion is determined by the work’s dominant effect when considered as a whole, not by selected excerpts read in isolation.
- The relevant audience is the average reader, not exceptionally susceptible persons.
- Serious literary character and the absence of a pornographic purpose may be considered in evaluating whether a work’s overall tendency is to arouse lust.
- A statute prohibiting “obscene” books may be construed in light of contemporary judicial standards rather than a mechanical application of earlier tests focused on isolated passages.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that § 305(a) did not authorize forfeiture of a serious literary work merely because it contained explicit passages; obscenity turns on the book’s overall dominant effect on the average reader, and *Ulysses* was therefore admissible.


United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses, 72 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1934)